A Baker’s Dozen Emperors
I take a seminar class on the American West, and it has taught me to draw parallels
between authors writing about seemingly dissimilar subjects. Others authors have written about
the same subject, and I never knew it because their styles and foci were so different. Two authors
who have more in common than one might initially think are Suetonius and Einhard. Though
several hundred years apart and in completely different eras, they still remained quite similar in
theme and focus.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus began writing The Twelve Caesars in 120 CE. His was one
of the first semi-objective works written to discuss history itself. He wrote about the JulioClaudian and Flavian emperors, whose reigns had since ended. The Antoinines were the ruling
dynasty at the time of Suetonius’ writings, specifically Hadrian. Hadrian was a travelling
emperor, spending at least 12 of his 21 years out of Rome. This gave Suetonius a fairly long
leash with which to explore the extensive archives in Rome.
The Antoinines had come to power with the assassination of the emperor Domitian of the
Flavian line and the ascension of Nerva in 96 CE. Hadrian had little reason to mind Suetonius’
criticisms of the Flavian line. Those in power agreed upon the greatness of Augustus, so praising
him was acceptable. So was the praise given to Claudius, Vespasian and Titus. Praising these
emperors solidified Hadrian’s qualifications as emperor. He was likened to them through the cult
of the emperor, and therefore praising the good emperors prior to him would add to Hadrian’s
prestige. Conversely, the criticism and damnation Suetonius paints Tiberius, Caligula (translated
as “Bootsy”), and Nero with is also quite accepted. Criticizing them did not harm Hadrian’s
legacy, nor did it cast any dispersion on the Antoinine line.
Suetonius spent the beginning of each biography focused on the ancestor worship for
each emperor – no matter the man’s depravity. In doing this, he showed the almost supernatural
nature of each emperor – strengthening the regard which people were supposed to have for the
emperor’s position. He was considered nearly a god. In fact, almost every emperor in The
Twelve Caesars received deification in his death. The one conscious exception was Domitian –
who received a damnatio (condemnation). This may be because he was the last in the line
replaced by the Antoinines.
Suetonius took care to show each emperor’s lineage, dating back to their last greatest
ancestor. Often he would trace the lineage back to the same one (all the Julio-Claudians were
related – if only through adoption). This also reinforces the honor of the line already in charge.
By building up the lineage of previous great emperors, Suetonius increased the Antoinines’
qualifications as emperor.
Another focus of Suetonius’ was on omens. Each emperor’s birth was preceded by a
series of omens. And, as each emperor entered his dying day, several omens ended up pointing to
his death. Julius Caesar’s death was preceded by horses turning repugnant, a King Bird being
torn to pieces by several other birds, a dream about meeting Jupiter, his wife dreaming about his
murder by multiple stabbings, and a door flying open on its own. If all of these are coincidence,
or even a fabrication of Suetonius’ (as he was known to include fictional anecdotes in his
biographies), they still point to the larger issue. Suetonius as an author and biographer was
concerned with and influenced by omens and supernatural occurrences.
While some of Suetonius’ foci may have been fiction – or at best impossible to prove,
others were more concrete. He focused on the greatness of Augustus incessantly through the
biographies. Suetonius used this as an extended version of ancestor worship as well. Except this
extends the legitimacy of any emperor who follows him. Because such a great man was emperor,
any following emperor is inherently great, no matter what kind of monster he is.
Suetonius focused on Augustus’ greatness during the Augustus chapter, but he also
referred to it in the other chapters. Along-side this greatness, he contrasted the horror of some of
the emperors (Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Domitian). He lambasted them as monsters, horrible
men, and needlessly evil. Suetonius may have been a pagan, but his morality still prohibited
molestation and rape of young children and arbitrary murder. Since these men were so morally
bankrupt (even for Roman times), Suetonius refused to gloss over these qualities. His apparent
commitment to objectivity is clear. He included these issues on purpose when writing about
people who were in positions of great power. What’s more, the society let him do so. They
remembered Nero’s and Domitian’s reigns; and their parents remembered and told them about
Caligula, and Tiberius. The aristocracy didn’t seem to mind Suetonius criticizing one of their
own because they supported a different line anyway.
He focused on these aspects of each emperor’s life because that was what people wanted;
it was also his priority. Because he was Roman, his belief in the semi-divinity of emperors was
reinforced by over 100 years of emperors’ deification. Suetonius also believed in omens and
ancestor worship, which were long-time mainstays of Roman society. Their polytheistic worship
included household gods, a pantheon of powerful gods, daemons, omens, and other things we
would classify as superstition. These are clearly pagan values, and they influenced his political
beliefs. They permeate his writing about these state leaders.
Einhard also focused on the greatness of an emperor. But with him, it was Charlamagne.
Herein lies the difference between the two. Einhard wrote about Charlamagne shortly after the
emperor’s death (and probably during his life), with the express purpose of praising him. He said
as much in his introduction. He also wanted to tell a history. But first and foremost, Einhard
promoted Charlamagne’s greatness to his audience. In every battle Einhard wrote about,
Charlamagne was the benevolent and brave emperor of the good guys, acting with honor in every
situation. The enemies were always the bad guys. But they were worse than normal bad guys
were. The Basques, Longobards, Germans and Northmen (Vikings) were all insidious in some
way. They acted entirely without honor, breaking their promises and ambushing Charlamagne’s
troops; and were cowards to the end. And all came under Charlamagne’s sword – deservingly so
according to Einhard.
His entire book reads like a public relations document. Even when Charlamagne shared
the throne with his brother, it was clear whom Einhard favored. Charlamagne was the apostlelike ruler. He came from semi-sanctified stock (his uncle was an attempted monk, his father
acted in accordance with what the church wanted), a la Solomon. He was patient with his brother
the entire time they shared the empire. Einhard lauded his building projects, listing endless
temples and shrines to holy figures and even mentioning the ones Charlamagne did not finish by
the time he died. These could have been an early form of indulgences. The building projects
took enormous amounts of capital to build. The wars and battles, no doubt, were probably fought
in part to gain the booty to pay for these projects. Einhard did not mention this. What was
mentioned about it was that these projects simultaneously showed Charlamagne’s piety and
charity.
Einhard set out to make a hero out of a great emperor. He did so using Christian values
that the people responded to at the time. Just like Suetonius’ foci on omens and such, Einhard’s
foci lay in the Christian ethos of Faith, Charity and Piety. Einhard was a Christian in the Holy
Roman Empire. He bought into the religion and politics at the time, and he judged people
according to them. Suetonius did the same, centuries before.
Christianity by this time had not only been legitimized; it had become the religion of the
empire. All others were banned. It had survived civil wars, early persecution, and internal and
external pressures to change. Instead of faltering, it galvanized through all of these; and
Christianity was inextricably intertwined with the state’s politics. The writing, the art, and the
imperial policy were all based on Christian doctrine.
As dissimilar as paganism and Christianity are, the authors were remarkably similar.
Both focused on greatness. It should be mentioned that Suetonius had far less greatness per
capita with which to work. Greatness was also manifested and defined in dissimilar ways. In
Suetonius’ time, greatness came from relatives, omens, who’s palms were greased, and who the
Antoinine’s appreciated. In Einhard’s time, greatness was from relatives, but that was secondary
to the amount of Christianity and bravery one exhibited. Ultimately, devotion to something
determined greatness. For the 12 Caesars, it was the state and politics. For Charlamagne it was
territorial consolidation/expansion and God.
Politically, the times of the twelve Caesars had a somewhat deistic approach to religion.
The afterlife was not seen as supremely important, so pleasing the gods was not so important.
Life was to be lived, and sometimes that seemed to mean a great deal of immorality. And while
Suetonius looked down on this immoral behavior, the empire did not stop running. In
Charlamagne’s time, it may have. Politics were such that morality was a big issue. If an emperor
or king acted immorally, it may have indeed led to civil strife. In Rome, civil strife happened (the
four Caesars in quick succession, ending with Vespasian), but not over religious ideology. It was
a power struggle, nothing more. Politics and the cultural value of religion determined the
influence religion had.
The moral focus of Suetonius and Einhard is relatively the same, regardless of the
religion. A few reasons are possible. First, there was some cultural bleed-over from the Roman
Empire into the Holy Roman Empire. A lot of cultural values stayed through the generations as
essentially good values. Second, there may be a universal morality. If so, the first part may still
be true as the universal morality would have been passed down, being universal. And finally,
Suetonius directly influenced Einhard. Therefore his morality may have been his own, influenced
by an individual. If so, then the first two could still be true as a universal morality was passed
from author to author.
I think there is a negative morality that is universal. Abusing people arbitrarily and
compulsively is immoral. So is breaking a promise. So is murder. These things did not change
in value from the time of Augustus to Charlamagne. The morality actually strengthened by
Charlamagne’s time. Einhard and Suetonius both exhibited this kind of judgement. They write
from that lens, focused slightly differently for each man on different objects. Though they are
over half a millennium away, they remain essentially the same in values if not in practice.