introduction Content and Purpose of This Study

The combination of political leadership and eccentric behaviour is not only a modern phenomenon. Nor has the question of whether too much power leads to madness been raised only in our own times.1When we think of powerful indi- viduals in important political roles who overstep moral boundaries, transgress social norms, and present themselves in eccentric ways, the Roman emperors inevitably come to mind. Nero’s eccentricities may be the first we think of, since they have also become a topic of popular culture: most people probably know Nero the artist-emperor (as pictured in the movie Quo vadis?) who sang to his lyre while Rome burned.2 The historian Tacitus says that this was a rumour, but, after reading his text, we are still inclined to believe that the mad emperor really sang. Thus in 2016 Nero was still considered a suitable object of detailed psychiatric analysis.3 The common Roman people, at least, are often said to have enjoyed his transgressive behaviour and artistic performances. But, when the historians and Suetonius mention Nero’s popularity with the people, this hardly sounds like a compliment. Is it just the intellectual elite that denigrates those in power who behave differently than expected? The emperor Domitian, who was the second Roman emperor to suffer official damnatio memoriae and who ended the Flavian dynasty, raises similar questions.4 He may be less pop-

1 The usual term to describe this connection between power and madness is Caesarenwahn- sinn. The concept became popular through Ludwig Quidde’s short study on Caligula. Quidde 1894, 20 contends that the ancient texts contain “in allen wesentlichen Zügen trockene his- torische Wahrheit”. He claims that Caligula suffered from a mental illness, the madness that is produced or supported by monarchical power. The symptoms are, according to Quidde: senseless luxury,esp. with regard to dinners and buildings; craving for military triumphs; long- ing for self-representation in public performances; cruelty; thinking of oneself or presenting oneself as divine. Quidde, who was winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1927, directed this depiction of monarchy and madness against the contemporary German Kaiser Wilhelm II, cf. Yavetz 1996, 118–119; Holl et al. 2001. On Caesarenwahnsinn from a modern psychological perspective see von Zerssen 2011. 2 Cf. the illustration in Elsner 1994, 119. 3 See Aschauer 2016 who reads Suetonius, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio in order to analyse Nero’s psychological disposition. He also undertakes a medical and psychiatric case-history of the whole Julio-Claudian family. 4 On Domitian and his ending of the Flavian dynasty see Charles 2002, 48–49, who points out that Domitian’s later reputation might have been completely different had he not been the last of his line. See also p.45–46.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407558_002 2 introduction ular today than Nero (and has not yet found his Peter Ustinov to portray him), but he is an equally ambivalent and opalescent figure. This study asks how, i.e. by which literary strategies, Roman historiography and biography created the negative images of Nero and Domitian that have been so persuasive and successful that readers are still disposed to trust them today. It does not inquire whether the historical Nero and Domitian really were mad. Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Suetonius employ several rhetorical devices in order to criticize forms of imperial representation they deem unacceptable. Since this critique is directed against—existing or potential—positive or neut- ral images of emperors and discourses about imperial representation, we can understand it as a form of deconstruction.5 ‘Deconstruction’ in this sense not only builds on the reaction to a previously constructed image of the same emperor, but also aims for a new, different construction. It is thus a creative, literary process which can be analysed from a philological viewpoint. With Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Suetonius’ deconstruction of imperial representation we capture three moments in the dynamic negotiations over the emperor’s image that were conducted between himself and the elite.6 In the broadest sense, this study is about the function of critical literature within this process of shaping images of the princeps in the early and high Roman Empire. This book offers an innovative, and philologically and critically grounded, approach to ancient historiography through a particular combination of au- thors and subjects. It brings together three high-profile authors who are linked by their representations of two controversial and intrinsically fascinating em- perors. In doing so, three aspects stand out. First, by uniting interpretations of Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Suetonius, whose literary techniques are not often discussed together despite the obvious overlap in subject matter, I offer the first combined reading of the works of these three authors from a philological point of view.7 Second, my analysis of these texts aims to stimulate new views and to offer innovative interpretative strategies to readers of otherwise well- worn texts. These strategies may well find applications in reading other texts and authors beyond the present study. Third, I focus on two emperors whose

5 For the theoretical background see p.38–46. 6 In his analysis of Trajan’s imperial representation Seelentag 2004 also underlines that the image of an emperor is never the final result of negotiations between him and his people, but always both the product of ongoing negotiations and the basis for future ones. 7 The brief study of Heinz 1948 about the image of Nero in Seneca, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cas- sius Dio has to be considered outdated. Heinz reads Tacitus as characterized by a “Bestreben nach objektiver Geschichtsforschung” (Heinz 1948, 134) and Cassius Dio’s books on Nero as “Produkte eines fanatischen Rhetors” (Heinz 1948, 135). He detects differences among these four authors only “im Kleinen” (Heinz 1948, 134).