Reading Character in Suetonius' De Vita Caesarum
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
READING CHARACTER IN SUETONIUS’ DE VITA CAESARUM BY AINE CLANCY MCVEY DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Classical Philology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2019 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Antony Augoustakis, Chair Associate Professor Ariana Traill Assistant Professor Brian Walters Assistant Professor Daniel William Leon Ruiz ABSTRACT How does the form of a literary text contribute to its function? This project addresses that question by examining how the structure (form) of Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus’ imperial biographies, De uita Caesarum (DVC), contributes to the characterization (function) of its subjects through the process of reading. Suetonius arranged his biographical material according to both chronology (per tempora), and topic (per species), and scholarly judgment on the success or failure of Suetonius’ character portrayal is inextricably linked with discussions of the text’s structural arrangement. I address how textual structure can contribute to character construction by utilizing fields of cognitive narratology, including reader-oriented criticism and theories of text-processing. Chapter 1 considers how aspects of sequential dynamics can be used to construct character by elucidating the character’s motivations or psychology through the recognition of causal links in the first seven anecdotes of the Diuus Iulius. Chapter 2 addresses the question of how the information in the chronological sections of the Diuus Iulius connects to the topical sections in the process of characterization through the construction of mental models and cognitive processing of material. Chapter 3 expands the methods from Chapters 1 and 2 to consider issues of coherence in four other biographies of the series which have traditionally piqued mixed or negative assessments of character portrayal: the Diuus Augustus, the Tiberius, the Domitianus, and the Diuus Claudius. In the Conclusion I illustrate how Suetonius’ reader constructs both a categorized mental model of the emperors as well as a personalized model in their respective biographies. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project could not have been completed without the support and assistance of several people. Thanks first to my advisor, Antony Augoustakis, who tirelessly read drafts and worked with me to ensure that various road blocks which popped up along the way would not deter me from this final destination. I am also grateful for the support from faculty members Daniel Leon, who kept me steering straight, and Clara Bosack-Schroeder, who helped me keep my head while listening to my heart. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee, Ariana Traill and Brian Walters, for their flexibility and understanding. To Ryan McConnell, Amy Oh, Daniel Abosso, Amy Norgard, Sebastian Anderson, and Jessica Wells, thank you for your inspiration and friendship. Finally, to my husband James I offer thanks and love for his unrelenting support and motivation. iii For James iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1: SEQUENTIAL DYNAMICS AND CHARACTERIZATION ............................. 24 CHAPTER 2: CONSTRUCTING CHARACTER FRAMES ....................................................... 62 CHAPTER 3: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SERIES .................................................................. 151 CONCLUSION: WHAT TYPE OF MODEL? ........................................................................... 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 217 v INTRODUCTION Problem Statement Much of the scholarship on character portrayal in Suetonius’ de uita Caesarum (hereafter DVC) bases its assessment of Suetonius’ success or failure in characterization on the structure of the text. However, no detailed study of how the structure of the DVC contributes to character construction has been conducted. This project aims to remedy that gap by applying methods of cognitive narratology in order to understand how the organization and presentation of material in a text contributes to the reader’s interpretative process of its content, particularly concerning characterization. Background and Context Overview The scholarship on Suetonius’ DVC is wide and varied, ranging from interest in the historical development and generic classification between biography and historiography,1 to literary criticism of the various narrative techniques of ancient biography in general, and Suetonius in particular.2 Previous scholars have produced detailed bibliographies and literature reviews of this 1 F. Leo (1901); Dorey (ed.) (1967); Baldwin (1983); Wallace-Hadrill (1983); Gascou (1984) 2 Studies concerned with Suetonius’ literary art include: Steidle (1951); Della Corte (1958) 203–30; Townend (1967) 81–96; Mouchová (1968); Venini (1975); Cizek (1977) 65–154; Gugel (1977); Gascou (1983) 675–706; Lounsbury (1987); Power (2007); and Power and Gibson (2014). Hägg (2012) looks at ancient biography with modern biography in mind, hoping to highlight the constants (structure, literary topoi, rhetorical schemes, means of characterization) and elucidate any differences. The recent edited volume of De Temmerman and Demoen (2016) examines the role of fictionalization in both Greek and Roman biographical works. 1 scholarship;3 in what follows I will frame my discussion of the scholarship around the issue of characterization. Aim of Biography Interest in the individual is an essential aspect of biography. According to D. A. Pauw, “[T]he aim of biography is to disclose the nature or ēthos of a person by means of selected actions which reveal his character. This is the reason why pithy anecdotes are characteristic of good biography. Since character is reflected by the totality of deeds and experiences it is a distinctive feature of biography that a man’s qualities are often presented by way of sententiae.”4 Pauw draws his assessment from those ancient biographical sources which declare their aims.5 For example, in the introduction to his Life of Alexander Plutarch argues that personal anecdotes are better suited for depicting one’s character, rather than descriptions of battles, thus distinguishing his own biographical work from history (Alex. 1.1–3). The ancient concept of “character,” denoted here by Plutarch’s term ēthos, is actually quite nuanced and complex. Generally speaking, “character” was considered to be composed of a combination of both innate qualities with which one was born, and behavioral traits, which one acquired through exposure to 3 For the most recent and thorough review of Suetonian scholarship, Power’s dissertation on Suetonius as the “hidden persuader” provides the best overview (2007: 2–50). See Galand-Hallyn (1991) and Benediktson (1993) for bibliographies of Suetonian scholarship ranging from 1938–88. The structure of Galand-Hallyn (1991) highlights the surprisingly contentious nature of Suetonian scholars by organizing studies around the pivotal year of 1950, with mostly negative assessments of Suetonius’ capability as a literary writer falling in the first half of the twentieth century. Steidle (1951) ushered in a revival, or “une réhabilitation” of Suetonian scholarship. 4 Pauw (1979) 123. 5 Plut. Alex. 1.1–3; Nepos Praef. 1; Epam. 1; Pelop. 1. 2 external factors, such as family, education, and culture.6 The innate qualities were fixed, but behavioral traits could change depending on circumstance. The corresponding terminology used to designate these two spheres of “character” are natura/φύσις (innate qualities/disposition) and mores/ἦθος (habits).7 The term characterization refers to the process of ascribing information to a character in the text in order to provide that character with certain properties.8 Such properties can include physical description, social status, occupation, psychological details, or even locative properties. Moreover, the characterizing function of these properties is determined by historical and cultural variables. The traditional debate about characterization in ancient texts has centered on the type of character produced by these properties. In other words, the dominating question has been whether or not the properties ascribed to a character in a text, together with the way in which those properties are introduced to the reader, create a complex character or a static one. Critics measured the complexity of a character in terms of psychological depth, often determined by the number and types of traits exhibited by or ascribed to a character. The most well-known designation of these character categories was coined by Edward Forster in his description of flat versus round characters: “Flat characters…are constructed round a single idea or quality”9 while 6 Past opinions held that ancient writers believed one’s character to be fixed at birth. However, more recent evaluations have reconsidered the validity of this generalization and have come to appreciate the more nuanced approaches to character and character portrayl in ancient texts. See especially Gill (1983) for his proposed distinction between “personality” and “character.” 7 Plutarch’s use of ἦθος in the Parallel Lives has an added moral dimension. For Plutarch’s conception of character and interest in both personality and moral character, see Duff (1999); Stadter (2000); Pelling