chapter 10 Strategies of Deconstruction in

1 Historiographical Techniques in Imperial Biographies

1.1 Artistry and Arrogance: Historiographical Traits of Suetonius’ and Domitian Although Suetonius does not write historiography, he shares some of the tech- niques that are used by and Cassius Dio to deconstruct imperial rep- resentation, i.e. to interpret it in a negative way reacting to other, positive or neutral interpretations. His focus of criticism about Nero and Domitian is the same as that found in the historiographical works: Suetonius too sets emphasis on Nero’s representation as an artist and on Domitian’s (autocratic) arrogance.1 We also find the same main differences between the two emperors that we know from the historiographical discourse. While Nero is depicted as quix- otic and as not understanding or not wanting to take up the role of emperor, Domitian overdoes his interpretation of the imperial role. While Nero is cri- ticized for following his artistic interests more and more openly, Domitian is depicted as an isolated person and as a bad military leader. Suetonius’ text structure, with its combination of rubrics and narrative passages, offers differ- ent ways to present these points of criticism. This section gives an overview of how Suetonius integrated the main historiographical points of criticism— Nero’s artistry and Domitian’s arrogance—into his biographies. In a rubric on public criticism of Nero, Suetonius gives examples of graffiti that concentrate on Nero’s matricide and the death of , his represent- ation as Apollo, the domus aurea, and his enmity to the senate (Ner. 39.2–3). In his own work, Suetonius focuses on Nero the artist. After the divisio in Ner. 19.3, which clearly separates the neutral and positive aspects of his reign from the negative ones, there follow two rubrics on Nero’s vices, probra (Ner. 20–25) and scelera (Ner. 26–38). While the scelera are structured according to standard reproaches against tyrants (petulantia, libido, luxuria, avaritia, crudelitas), the probra section is a genuinely Neronian one. It is not divided into several vices or different topics of imperial representation but is completely dedicated to forms of Nero’s representation as an artist, which are arranged in a mixture of

1 For the imperial representation of Nero and Domitian in historical, panegyrical, and histori- ographical discourse see chapter 3.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407558_017 strategies of deconstruction in suetonius 279 chronological, spatial, and—mainly—thematic order. The section starts with a rubric on music (Ner. 20–21.2), which shows how Nero increasingly indulges his musical interests. The following rubric is not clearly separated from that on music, but is loosely added to it: the dubitavit etiam an in Ner. 21.2 forms the transition from Nero’s ambitions as a lyre-player to his performances as an actor (Ner. 21.2–3). As the third element of Nero’s artistic interests Suetonius presents his passion for horses and chariot-driving, which he felt from his early youth (ab ineunte aetate, Ner. 22.1). This rubric on chariot-driving (Ner. 22.1– 3) shows a development in Suetonius’ Nero similar to that found in the rubric on music: he turns a passive, playful enthusiasm into active performance (Ner. 22.1), and he follows his passion ever more openly and more often (Ner. 22.1–2). These three rubrics—music, acting, chariot-driving—reappear in the depic- tion of the journey to Greece (66CE), which now follows (Ner. 22.3–25). More than the three preceding sections this depiction of the journey emphasizes the clash of Nero’s imperial role and his personal passions (Ner. 23.1): when he is told by his freedman Helius that the affairs in Rome require his presence, he is not willing to fulfil the role of emperor. He rather wants Helius to wish that he come back to Rome worthy of a Nero (“… optare potius debes, ut Nerone dignus revertar”, Ner. 23.1). Speaking of himself in the third person Suetonius’ Nero is starting to create a type out of himself. He turns himself into a figure that he prefers to the figure of the emperor. In the triumph that he holds after his return from Greece, traditional military elements are replaced by artistic elements, for example displaying his victory crowns instead of booty and the names of the artists he defeated and the titles of his songs and dramas instead of the names of the foes and details of the battles (Ner. 25.1–2). The clash between Nero’s own idea of his role and the role of emperor is emphasized again later, in the narrative passage about Nero’s final weeks and death (Ner. 40–49).2 The passage opens with the statement that the world had endured such a princeps for almost fourteen years, but now finally could endure him no longer: talem principem paulo minus quattuordecim annos perpessus ter- rarum orbis tandem destituit (Ner. 40.1). With Nero’s end stated already here at the beginning of the death narrative, the passage concentrates completely on Nero’s behaviour, not on the events themselves. This final passage is struc- tured according to time and space and shows how Suetonius’ Nero becomes altogether an artist. The possible loss of his power, we learn, would allow him to become solely an artist and to find an excuse to play the cithara, which

2 Cf. Lounsbury 1991, 3755: “It is at the death that the theme of Nero the performer, self- conscious, obsessed with appearance and applause, is played out to the fullest.”