Rome

[Malthus]

Why are people down on Suetonius?

The man did write "The Lives of Famous Prostitutes". He can't be all bad. 

Oh he's great.  But in terms of history the TV series is probably more accurate :p

What were his inaccuracies? I'm curious, because I always assumed he was a reasonable source, if very gossipy - but I'm no expert.

[Sheilbh]

What were his inaccuracies? I'm curious, because I always assumed he was a reasonable source, if very gossipy - but I'm no expert.

I'm not sure.  I base this on talking with a couple of people who study Ancient History.  They said that he is basically so gossipy and circumstantial that he just isn't trustworthy.  Apparently quoting Suetonius or Plutarch is an excellent way of padding out essays because you have to spend about 500 words explaing the inherent difficulties of using Suetonius or Plutarch as a source, how unreliable they are and so on before you get to the quotation.

In comparison with Tacitus and Sallust, for example, who are apparently seen as pretty trustworthy. From what I can gather I think Suetonius is viewed as a sort of Roman political version of Herodotus.  So he's fun to read but if you're looking for facts stick with the ones like Thucydides.

[Malthus]

What were his inaccuracies? I'm curious, because I always assumed he was a reasonable source, if very gossipy - but I'm no expert.

I'm not sure.  I base this on talking with a couple of people who study Ancient History.  They said that he is basically so gossipy and circumstantial that he just isn't trustworthy.  Apparently quoting Suetonius or Plutarch is an excellent way of padding out essays because you have to spend about 500 words explaing the inherent difficulties of using Suetonius or Plutarch as a source, how unreliable they are and so on before you get to the quotation.

In comparison with Tacitus and Sallust, for example, who are apparently seen as pretty trustworthy. From what I can gather I think Suetonius is viewed as a sort of Roman political version of Herodotus.  So he's fun to read but if you're looking for facts stick with the ones like Thucydides.

Heh, some people evidently feel differently:

It has often been said that Suetonius, a former archivist, used sources from the Roman state archive. This is probably not true. Suetonius' sources are authors like Cluvius Rufus, Pliny the Elder, and a collection of letters by the emperor Augustus. As far as we can see, he treats his subject matter more or less objectively. His biographies contain much gossip, but Suetonius does not ignore or misrepresent information from his sources. This is more than we can say about his contemporary Tacitus.

http://www.livius.org/su-sz/suetonius/suetonius.html

[garbon]

What a hideous website!

[I Killed Kenny]

I was reading about Constatine I. I think his story would make a great Rome II series. Don't you think?

[Caliga]

Dude, you can tell from Suetonius's very words that alot of his stories are tongue-in-cheek, and either meant to be humorous or politically-motivated slander.  For example, there's the hilarious story of a fisherman who scaled Capri to give a fish to Tiberius, and Tiberius was so angry that he took the mullet from him and rubbed it in his face till all of the skin was sloughed off.  I think his men then threw the guy off the cliffs back into the sea. 

[Malthus]

Dude, you can tell from Suetonius's very words that alot of his stories are tongue-in-cheek, and either meant to be humorous or politically-motivated slander.  For example, there's the hilarious story of a fisherman who scaled Capri to give a fish to Tiberius, and Tiberius was so angry that he took the mullet from him and rubbed it in his face till all of the skin was sloughed off.  I think his men then threw the guy off the cliffs back into the sea. 

Consider some of the crap that Roman emperors are supposed to have done, that's pretty mild.   

[Ed Anger]

Dude, you can tell from Suetonius's very words that alot of his stories are tongue-in-cheek, and either meant to be humorous or politically-motivated slander.  For example, there's the hilarious story of a fisherman who scaled Capri to give a fish to Tiberius, and Tiberius was so angry that he took the mullet from him and rubbed it in his face till all of the skin was sloughed off.  I think his men then threw the guy off the cliffs back into the sea. 

If the fisherman was 8, Tiberius would have fucked him. Then rubbed his mullet on him.

[Caliga]

I know, but it's just that I find that particular story impossible to believe.  For one, having been to Capri and seen the site of Villa Iovis, I find it hard to imagine someone scaling the sea cliffs leading up to it (unless erosion has changed them considerably since then), not to mention hard to believe this guy could have just walked up to Tiberius unimpeded by guards.  I do see Tiberius rubbing the guy's face off with a fish though 

[Queequeg]

One of these days you'll have to explain to us how is it someone so 'vastly intelligent' managed to remain a high school teacher in the middle of nowhere; it should prove entertaining.

You see Grallon, some people have this thing called empathy.  It means that intelligent people can choose to spend their life trying to help young people rather than trying to molest them.

[Malthus]

I know, but it's just that I find that particular story impossible to believe.  For one, having been to Capri and seen the site of Villa Iovis, I find it hard to imagine someone scaling the sea cliffs leading up to it (unless erosion has changed them considerably since then), not to mention hard to believe this guy could have just walked up to Tiberius unimpeded by guards.  I do see Tiberius rubbing the guy's face off with a fish though 

The way I heard the story (admittedly in Graves' book I, Claudius) the difficulty of the ascent explains why he wasn't guarded from the sea-cliff side - no point. But this guy, living in the area, knew a path. When the guy appeared, he scared Tiberius so much that he reacted by having him tortured & killed when his guards arrived.

[Sheilbh]

It has often been said that Suetonius, a former archivist, used sources from the Roman state archive. This is probably not true. Suetonius' sources are authors like Cluvius Rufus, Pliny the Elder, and a collection of letters by the emperor Augustus. As far as we can see, he treats his subject matter more or less objectively. His biographies contain much gossip, but Suetonius does not ignore or misrepresent information from his sources. This is more than we can say about his contemporary Tacitus.

http://www.livius.org/su-sz/suetonius/suetonius.html

That may be true but with Suetonius and Tacitus I think it's impossible to judge the degree they used sources.  The other sources generally haven't survived and the Classical practise was to use the words of another if you agreed with them and only cite a source if you wish to take issue with what they've said.  This makes attributing sources very difficult.

I imagine the preference for Tacitus within the academic community comes from the observation that he treats Tiberius and the year of the four emperors in a way that's more more congruent with what else we know about those figures and that period.  There are other periods too that they overlap and, generally, I think Tacitus's version better gels with other sources we have and what we've learned from other techniques.

[Malthus]

It has often been said that Suetonius, a former archivist, used sources from the Roman state archive. This is probably not true. Suetonius' sources are authors like Cluvius Rufus, Pliny the Elder, and a collection of letters by the emperor Augustus. As far as we can see, he treats his subject matter more or less objectively. His biographies contain much gossip, but Suetonius does not ignore or misrepresent information from his sources. This is more than we can say about his contemporary Tacitus.

http://www.livius.org/su-sz/suetonius/suetonius.html

That may be true but with Suetonius and Tacitus I think it's impossible to judge the degree they used sources.  The other sources generally haven't survived and the Classical practise was to use the words of another if you agreed with them and only cite a source if you wish to take issue with what they've said.  This makes attributing sources very difficult.

I imagine the preference for Tacitus within the academic community comes from the observation that he treats Tiberius and the year of the four emperors in a way that's more more congruent with what else we know about those figures and that period.  There are other periods too that they overlap and, generally, I think Tacitus's version better gels with other sources we have and what we've learned from other techniques.

Fair enough - I don't know enough to say. I suspect that the seemingly widespread notion that he's inaccurate comes more from his inclusion of salacious gossip though.

[Caliga]

Fair enough - I don't know enough to say. I suspect that the seemingly widespread notion that he's inaccurate comes more from his inclusion of salacious gossip though.

I think you're right.  His biographies of the Caesars are certainly thorough, though.... so I don't feel he can be totally dismissed.  Plus, he is funny as shit.

[grumbler]

One of these days you'll have to explain to us how is it someone so 'vastly intelligent' managed to remain a high school teacher in the middle of nowhere; it should prove entertaining. 

I appreciate the compliment about my intellectual capabilities, but the answer isn't so much "amusing" as it is that i had the choice.

But since you bleet about it, I'll explain how I missed the point to you - again.

FYPFY

We all understood the character was scheming, that's how she was written.  What was crass was the method employed to show us that, as well as the implied motivation of the queen.  The method was having her take the first roman around in order to bind Caesar to her - when in fact it was nothing more than a contrivance to tie in our two nobodies with the greater story.  As for the implied motivation, her so called desperation, not even that would have made a Ptolemey demean herself.  And I'm not even talking about the sheer stupidity of giving her brother the ammunition to brand her as a whore sleeping with a low born foreigner; especially when there were slaves all around to babble about it.

Again, you miss the point.  She felt that she had to get pregnant, with a baby that would be acceted by Caesar has his, or she would be killed.  The fact that she took the second Roman around (because he was of higher rank) first, and only went with the only other Roman around when the first turned her down, proved that she was desperate for any Roman kid.  You claim to know what would and wouldn't motivate a Ptolemy is unpersuasive, as is your assumption that her brother wouldn't accuse her of just that, no matter what.

Besides, it is a TV drama, not a history, and all that is required IMO is plausibility within the story.  Asking for Rome to be perfectly historically accurate is like asking The Lord of the Rings to be so; it's not in the cards.

Hopefully you 'got it' this time ?

I have always gotten it.  I suspect that you still don't, even though I have explained it twice.