Suetonius (CLA1408/2408) Assignment 3
Reading Imperial Physiognomy: How does Suetonius use physical description to characterise either Augustus (Aug. 79) or Caligula (Cal. 50)? (750 words) *UPGRADED*
*Student Number:*Study Group:
Physiognomy, or the assessment of a person’s character from their outward appearance, is used by Suetonius to emphasise personalities already depicted throughout his biographies of the Twelve Caesars. Wardman claims that in exaggerating certain appearances and making allusions to negative imagery from Pseudo-Aristotelian texts he focuses his characterisation on scandal, rather than reporting the truth (1967, 419). Yet it seems that the salacious details mentioned in his descriptions of the emperors show their true characters; their private, not public lives being the keys to understanding their personalities.
Suetonius is very critical of Caligula, both as an emperor and as a person. He is one of the only emperors, save Domitian and Galba who is cast solely in a bad light, unlike Nero, who has both good and bad features in his physiognomy. His sunken eyes, which are the ‘abode of the mind’(Evans 1969, 47), are emphasised, and made more intimidating, we are told, by the fact that Caligula used to practice pulling uncouth, and repulsive faces in the mirror (50). According to ancient physiognomical theory Caligula’s hairy and badly built body characterises him as a “goat”, a sign of both stupidity and foolishness (Evans 1969, 54). This characterization is acknowledged by Caligula himself; Suetonius tells us that he forbade anyone from mentioning goats in any context as they passed him. Evans suggests that he is characterised as a “panther” as well (1969, 55), due to his small eyes, thin neck and ill-proportioned body, a sign to ancient physiognomists of effeminacy. Suetonius portrays him as being aware of his own physiognomical and mental failings (50) and this self-consciousness must have played some part in his rages. The juxtaposing features of going bald before thirty (R.S. Katz, 1972, 224) and being overly hairy everywhere else emphasises his weak character, in that he could not even properly regulate his own body. Many ancient biographers and historians portray him as unable to control himself mentally as well as physically however, whilst Suetonius would have us believe that Caligula’s trademark was his insanity, he was not “insane” in the modern sense (R.S. Katz 1972, 225). His hairiness was also a sign of cowardice, one of his ‘contradictory’ vices (51) along with over-confidence possibly caused by his insomnia, making him wander the palace at night. In this respect, and this alone we feel sorry for Caligula, and Suetonius does not try to spin the mention of his inability to sleep, a sad picture is evoked of him calling the dawn which ‘seemed as if it would never break’.However, his cruelty, shown in his bandy legs, overshadows this and we remember the description of ‘Caligula, the monster’ (22). His pallid completion may also have been a sign of effeminacy, as women tended to stay at home out of the suns gaze, whilst men of any status at all would spend the day doing business in the Forum, or at any rate, outside. Pliny would interpret his ‘broad and forbidding’ forehead as meaning that he has a sluggish mind, adding to the list of physiognomical defects. The description of Caligula coming so soon after the biography of Augustus, which is the benchmark to which all other emperors are compared, emphasises the clear distinction between a just and unjust ruler. Augustus is described as the physiognomical “lion”, and we are encouraged to see ‘Augustus’ character as excellent’ (Evans 54). Although Caligula was taller than Augustus (50) (Augustus, 79), a feature that should have been to his advantage, he was ‘ill proportioned’ like a rogue (Evans 54). Here Suetonius attempts to show his character in a favourable light, despite all the negative physiognomical features mentioned. His biographical technique does not allow for him to be biased, as he drew from many different literary and anecdotal sources (J.C.Rolfe, 1913 222) and left it to the audience to interpret the character from his description.
Tamsyn Barton claims that Suetonius uses physiognomy to alter his audience’s opinion of the emperors (1994, 48) whilst Wallace-Hadrill states that Suetonius uses tales ‘of virtues to generate popularity, [and] of vices to induce hatred’ (1995, 149), and I disagree on both counts. Whilst it is clear that the physiognomy is moulded slightly to fit certain characteristics, the “goat” and “panther”, Suetonius merely repeats that which has been passed down, either by record or anecdote. The descriptions seem as though they are meant to encourage physiognomical interpretation supporting the biography, not to boost an emperor’s popularity posthumously. Thus Suetonius uses traditional physiognomical characteristics, that of the “panther” and the “goat” to portray Caligula as a cruel cowardly and effeminate emperor.
Word Count :763Date:
MAKING THE MOST OF FEEDBACK
(Please answer the following questions, expanding the boxes as necessary)
What marks were you given for Assignments 1 and 2? ______/______
Feedback from other peopleWhat feedback did you receive from other people on Assignment 1? What aspects needed improvement or development?
Implementing earlier feedback
What ideas for good practice to follow and/or bad practice to avoid did you get from the earlier assessment exercises? What changes will you make to Assignment 1 in the light of these?
Increased understanding of the subject matter
How has subsequent discussion in seminars, lectures or on the discussion forum added to your understanding of what the assignment requires?
How has your own reading of secondary literature added to your understanding of the topic?
Describe and justify the changes you have made to Assignment 1 in order to upgrade it to Assignment 3 What changes have you made to your earlier piece? Why have you made each change?
Self-assessment MARKING TABLE. For each objective place a in the box which reflects the achievements of the assignment. Add comment below.
Objectives/Achievements / High First 80%+ / First Class 70% + / 2.1(60-70%) / 2.2
(50-60%) / Third
(40-50%) / Fail
(0-39%)
How well-written is it? /
English style shows flair, personality and eloquence
/
Clear writing and accurate English style /
Generally clear writing and acceptable style
/
Adequate English style /
Poor style and presentation /
Incomprehensible
Does it answer the question? /
Exceptional quality /
Comprehensive and effective answer to the question
/
Thorough answer covering all or most aspects of the question /
Adequate answer to the question; covers main aspects /
Failure to address important aspects of the question
/
Failure to understand question
Is the analysis skilful? /
Penetrating analysis using explicit methodologies /
Analytical, aware of methodologies, conceptually sound / Good analysis; direct engagement with text /
Descriptive rather than analytical; relies on the conclusions and opinions of others
/ Descriptive rather than analytical; heavy reliance on e.g. lecture notes / No analysis; no engagement with text
Does it engage with and/or criticise the ideas of others, including scholars?
/
Cogent and original criticism of others /
Effective criticism of other arguments /
Wide-reading generally well-digested; critical awareness of different viewpoints
/
Fair amount of reading; some awareness of different viewpoints /
Limited reading; heavy reliance on lecture notes /
Little or no evidence that secondary literature
has been read
Does it demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the topic? /
Knowledge based on independent reading and high-level synthesis
/
Wide-ranging knowledge and understanding /
Good knowledge and understanding; errors of emphasis but not of fact
/
Adequate knowledge and understanding; errors balanced by sounds work /
Limited knowledge with serious errors and/or omissions /
Little evidence of knowledge
Is the argument clear, well-structured and persuasive? /
Cogent and original argumentation; excellent structure - every line counts
/
Cogent relevant argument; well organised structure /
Sound argument with evidence of analysis and reasoning; satisfactory structure /
Adequate and generally relevant structure; generally coherent structure /
Weak structure and argument /
Extensive irrelevance
How well are primary sources handled? /
Independent use and evaluation of evidence /
Excellent use and evaluation of evidence /
Good use of evidence to back up points made /
Some use of evidence to back up points made; some generalisation or unsupported claims
/
Little use of evidence; extensive generalisation or unsupported claims /
Little evidence of knowledge
Comment and Feedback: what was good about this assignment? What aspects need more work? What content was left out? How could it be improved?
Numerical grade………%
your NAME: