The Bibliotheke

August 29: A Pair of Good Emperors: Vespasian and Titus

1. How does Suetonius use Vespasian’s ancestry to define him and set the stage for his reign?
2. What qualities does Suetonius highlight in Vespasian before he becomes emperor?
3. Once Vespasian becomes emperor, how does he rule? What is Suetonius positive about, what is he negative about?
4. How is Vespasian’s personal character connected to his method of ruling?
5. What about Vespasian does Suetonius criticize? Does he try to downplay or justify any of Vespasian’s failings?
6. Many ancient authors believed that a person’s death was indicative of their character and life. How does Suetonius portray Vespasian’s death and does it fit with this?
7. What signs does Titus give of being a “bad” emperor in potentia before he actually becomes emperor?
8. What does Suetonius particularly highlight from Titus’s reign that makes him so good?
9. How does Titus’s reign contrast with his father’s?
10. What kind of portrait of an ideal emperor can we construct from Suetonius’s accounts of Vespasian and Titus? Inverting it, what can we guess about what he would disapprove of?

September 12: Tiberius

1. How does Suetonius use the family history of the Claudians to establish Tiberius’s character? 
2. What is the importance of class status in the Claudian & Livian background? How does it help explain Tiberius?
3. How does the childhood and early career of Tiberius foreshadow his life, and how does it not? Can you imagine alternative paths the Emperor might have taken from youth?
4. What does Suetonius like about Tiberius, at least early in his reign? How does this compare to Titus and Vespasian?
5. Starting at Chapter 33 Suetonius chronicles Tiberius’s turn for the worse - what does he specifically highlight? Is it all as bad as he makes it out, or can you think of other ways to present it? 
6. Why does Tiberius “retire” to Capri? How apparent are his vices beforehand in Suetonius’s account? How does he know about all of this?
7. What about Tiberius’s treatment of his family? How does this connect to his own upbringing? Can you think of any possible justification besides Tiberius just being evil? Does Suetonius give any?
8. What does Suetonius reveal about his own attitudes towards different classes and different peoples?
9. What qualities does Velleius highlight in Tiberius as a general?
10. Does Velleius truly admire Tiberius, or is this the history of a sycophant?
11. How does Velleius treat the same events differently than Suetonius? Can we trust one over the other?
12. Are the flaws/evils that Suetonius describes visible at all in Velleius? Does he explain away things?

September 19: Gaius (Caligula)

1. Why does Suetonius go into such detail about Germanicus, Caligula’s father? How does Germanicus contrast with both Tiberius and Caligula?
2. Why does Suetonius devote so much space to discussing the location of Caligula’s birth?
3. How is Caligula a “good” emperor in the first part of his reign? Does Suetonius believe it, or is Caligula just feigning?
4. What particular good deeds does Suetonius highlight, and what do they suggest about his own priorities? How does this compare to Tiberius, Vespasian, & Titus and their good actions?
5. Suetonius calls Gaius a monster - what does he highlight the most to prove this? How does this differ from what makes Tiberius evil?
6. Who or what does Gaius seem the most inclined to go after? Could this reflect Suetonius’s own biases? Can we perceive any sort of rational policy behind Gaius’s actions?
7. Is Caligula evil, insane, some combination, or neither? Are there any places where you want to question Suetonius’s presentation of Gaius?
8. Why does Gaius insist on attacking the Jews, according to Josephus? Are similar actions towards others seen in Suetonius, or are the Jews uniquely victims?
9. Is Gaius a madman here or just a tyrant? Does Josephus’s account of his dealings with the Jews support the evaluation he gives of the Emperor at the start of Book 19? 

September 26: Claudius

1. How does the short account of Drusus compare to Germanicus at the start of the life of Gaius? What function does it serve? Does the account of the Claudians at the start of the life of Tiberius also foreshadow Claudius, or is he an anomaly in the family?
2. What does Suetonius think about Claudius’s life before he became emperor?
3. How does Claudius establish his legitimacy as emperor? Is this different from what Tiberius and Caligula do? Is Suetonius impressed with them?
4. Is Claudius simply incompetent, or can you see some order or intentions behind his actions?
5. What does Suetonius approve of?
6. What is Claudius’s policy towards slaves, freedmen, and non-Romans? How does Suetonius feel about this? 
7. What does Claudius’s relationships with his wives reveal about Roman ideals about masculinity and femininity?
8. In the Apocolocyntosis does the author grant Claudius any legitimate accomplishments?
9. What is Claudius criticized/condemned for, and how is this like or unlike what we see in Suetonius?
10. How does Claudius try to establish his legitimacy to the gods?
11. Augustus is a “good emperor” - what characterizes him as such and how does he contrast with Claudius? Is he being mocked too?
12. Can you think of any modern works like the Apocolocyntosis?

October 3: Nero

1. How does the Domitian clan set up Nero? How does it compare with Suetonius’s presentation of the ancestors of Tiberius and Claudius?
2. How is Nero (and for that matter Gaius and even Tiberius) being groomed for power as a young man? Can we see the roots of their “badness” here?
3. What makes Nero a “good” emperor, at least at the start of his reign? How does it compare to the others? Does Suetonius imply it was all for show?
4. What does Nero’s propensity for public display show about him? How does it differ from other emperors? How does Suetonius feel about it, and is there any evidence that others might have felt differently?
5. What are the particular crimes of Nero? Is Nero the culmination of the bad emperors who came before or does Suetonius depict his “badness” in a different way?
6. How is Nero’s downfall, as Suetonius depicts it, the culmination of his reign? How does it serve to finish the definition of his character?
7. Can you imagine an alternate presentation of Nero, if not as a good emperor, at least in a positive light?

October 10: Domitian

1. At this point we’ve read enough Suetonius to know the drill - so how does he characterize Domitian as a bad emperor? Does this differ from Tiberius et al? Who does Domitian seem especially to persecute? And can you reimagine Domitian in a positive light? What about his manner of death?
2. How does Domitian contrast specifically with Vespasian and Titus?
3. Generally speaking, does Suetonius have a standard way of defining emperors good or bad? What characteristics of “badness” does he frequently cite?
4. Overall, what class’s viewpoints does Suetonius adopt? Can you get suggestions of alternative viewpoints in the lives?
5. How well do you think Suetonius’s techniques might work on more recent “bad” rulers?
6. Tacitus’s Agricola gives us a different perspective on Domitian - what makes Domitian a bad emperor here? How does Agricola deal with it? Does Domitian seem worse or better than in Suetonius?

October 24: The First Emperor of China

1. How does Sima Qian discredit the First Emperor (Zheng) before he is even born? How are his parents (both official and unofficial) portrayed?
2. How does Lu Buwei try to establish his legitimacy? How does this resemble the Roman emperors we’ve looked at?
3. How are both Lu Buwei and the First Emperor’s mother further discredited during his minority?
4.  Why, according to the Annals, is Qin able to conquer the rest of the China? Does it reflect positively on Qin?
5. How does the Emperor legitimize himself after the unification of China? Is this similar to any Roman emperors we’ve seen?
6. What role do Li Si and the emperor’s other advisors have to play in the emperor’s tyranny and megalomania? What is the nature of the state they create?
7. How does the Emperor depict himself in the various inscriptions he has put up around China? What does it show about the ideology of his reign and himself?
8. How does Sima Qian contrast the inscriptions with the First Emperor’s actions?
9. How does the First Emperor become more and more tyrannical and megalomaniacal? Again, compare this to the Roman emperors we’ve looked at.
10. How does the story of Chen Sheng further discredit the rule of the First Emperor?

October 31: Justinian & Theodora

1. Why does Procopius say he writes the Secret History? Why should we believe him?
2. How does Procopius start to discredit Justinian and Theodora even before they ascend the throne? How does this compare with other authors we’ve looked at?
3. How does Procopius define Justinian and Theodora as bad? How similar are they to earlier emperors, or are they pioneers in new frontiers of “badness?”
4. How do Justinian and Theodora deliberately court chaos? Have we seen anything like this before? Can you think of any other explanations for their actions?
5. Is Procopius’s description of Justinian and Theodora consistent, or is he so eager to tar them in every way that he doesn’t worry about that?
6. What can we infer about Procopius’s own social status? How might this affect his depiction of Justinian and Theodora?
7. What does Procopius feel is the proper role of women in society? Would he make a good gender studies teacher?
8. Reading between the lines, can we find justifications for some of Justinian and Theodora’s actions? Can we reimagine them as good rulers?
9. What more modern works can you think of in the vein of The Secret History?

November 7: Al-Hakim of the Fatimids

1. A common problem in western historiography about the Near East is orientalizing - exaggerating exotic or barbaric elements. Do we find this at all in Lane-Poole’s account of al-Hakim?
2. Another problem is Victorian moralizing - does Lane-Poole betray this at all?
3. What marks al-‘Aziz as a good ruler? Is this similar to what we’ve seen before, or does Lane-Poole focus on different elements than the ancient historians? What might this show about Lane-Poole?
4. What is the role of minority religions under al-Hakim? How are they treated and why?
5. Besides religious minorities, who does al-Hakim seem especially interested in persecuting? Might he have good reasons?
6. Is al-Hakim mad, or does there seem to be some actual reasoning behind his actions? 
7. How does Lane-Poole turn even al-Hakim’s accomplishments into negatives? Where else have we seen this?
8. How does Walker attempt to “normalize” al-Hakim’s actions. How successful do you think he is? Or does his attempt go too far in the opposite direction from Lane-Poole and others?

November 14: George III of Great Britain

1. The Declaration of Independence famously defines what makes George III a tyrant. How similar are these characteristics to the other leaders we’ve looked at? How are they different, and why might that be? Does it say more about a different point of view, are ideas about bad emperors changing from antiquity, or are values changing?
2. Walker, in The Last King of America, refutes Jefferson’s charges. How convincing is he, or can you still see some validity to the Declaration? What good qualities of George does he emphasize?
3. How does Adolphus paint George as a good ruler? How have the criteria for being a good ruler changed since Suetonius?
4. The excerpts from Walpole and Lecky present a negative view of George III. Are their criticisms similar to Jefferson’s, or do they have different complaints? How do their characterizations of George compare with the earlier Bad Emperors - do we see the same sorts of issues, or is the modern world coming to a new understanding of tyranny?
5. What class or other prerogatives can we find underlying some of the criticism of George III?
6. Are these authors as interested in George III’s personal life as in his public actions? Why or why not?
7. Namier represents a revisionist view of George III as a bad ruler. How convincing is he? Does this make George III out to be a good ruler, or just not “bad?”  How about Fryer’s anti-revisionist stance?
8. George III is the one bad emperor you all have probably studied before in US history classes - have your feelings about him changed?

November 21: Leopold II of Belgium

1. How does Leopold apparently try to establish himself as a “good” ruler? How does this compare to what we’ve seen before?
2. Who is actually exposing Leopold’s crimes? What does this show about late 19th-early 20th century ideas about morality and social justice?
3. What sort of stereotypes about Africans does “Leopold” indulge in here? How does this compare with other minority groups we’ve seen with earlier leaders?
4. What role do the Africans themselves have to play in this? What does this say about the attitudes of white Europeans (and Americans) in general here?
5. What atrocities are taking place under Leopold’s rule? How does he attempt to “justify” or excuse them? Can you see any parallels in earlier bad emperors?
6. What is the purpose behind Leopold’s bad rule in the Congo? How does it differ from earlier rulers - in other words, is he bad for different reasons?
7. What sort of international order is apparent that didn’t exist for earlier emperors? How does this change how much “badness” an emperor can get away with?
8. What do the comparisons with the Czar say about late 19th-early 20th century ideas about good and bad rulers? How do these differ from what we have already seen?