|
July 27, 2004
A tyrant for our time?
Much as I hate elections, I couldn't help noticing that poor Domitian hasn't gotten a single vote in the evil emperor contest over on the right hand side of this blog. This is understandable, and generally speaks well of the knowledge of history of Classical Values readers. For Domitian is probably the weakest candidate for most evil emperor, although I felt obliged to include him because the traditional view of him is so negative. However, it has occurred to me that some readers may have overlooked Domitian because they don't know much about him, in much the same way that voters overlooked, say, the candidacy of Dennis Kucinich. (And no, that is not in any way a suggestion of moral equivalency!) I hesitate to call this an endorsement of Domitian, though. Perhaps it should be called a get-out-the-vote sort of infomercial. For starters, Domitian is considered to be a persecutor of Christians -- a charge many historians consider overstated, if not unproven. (Here's the traditional Christian view.) But without dwelling on whether or not the Christian persecutions may be laid at his doorstep, what kind of guy was Domitian? The following is along the lines of the traditional view: Historians have described Domitian as "crazy and unbalanced". He suffered from social inadequacy and preferred solitude to the company of people. He had a distrustful nature and was constant in fear of conspiracies; the pillars of his palace were made of white reflective marble so that he could see what was going on behind him. Like Caligula, Domitian was very sensitive of his baldness and official portraits continued to show him with flowing locks of hair. Domitian was also notorious for his cruelty. He is supposed to have invented a new method of torture: burning the sexual organs of his victims. Domitian was capable of inviting an erring official to supper, dismissing him in such a way that the man retired happy and carefree. Nevertheless, the next day he was executed. Domitian also enjoyed asking senators to dinner-parties at which all the equipment was black, so that the guests were numb with fright. Like Vespasian, Domitian persecuted Stoic philosophers and Jews. He had all Jews, who claimed descent from King David, tracked down and killed. Very peculiar was Domitian's pleasure in catching flies, stabbing them with the point of a pen and tearing their wings out.Cute. Worth a vote or two maybe? But according to the more modern view, Domitian "governed the empire well." Yeah, well why did his own father (and predecessor, Vespasian) not want him on the throne? Why was there such rejoicing in his assassination (a plot even his wife joined)? I decided that because Domitian hasn't gotten a single vote, that it's fair for me to put in at least one bad word or two for his candidacy. From a libertarian standpoint, the man's autocratic style was dreadful: Domitian was an authoritarian figure for whom people were a means to an end. The elaborate facade of grandeur that he built for the office of emperor has been impossible to breach to find the man behind the mask. His morality was strict and punitive, as was his inflexible application of the rule of law. A quote of Domitian that nobody believes in conspiracies until the emperor is dead reveals the paranoia that motivated him, particularly following the rebellion of Saturninus. Greater security, however, was his ultimate undoing. It is ironic that Domitian’s courtiers were those who murdered him, fearful of the unpredictable nature of their master, while the Senate remained impotent to take action.Regarding that last quote, it appears that false dichotomies are nothing new.... And I seriously doubt that "everybody was permitted to do everything." This account is, I think, typifies the modern view of Domitian. Excerpt: In many ways, Domitian is still a mystery - a lazy and licentious ruler by some accounts, an ambitious administrator and keeper of traditional Roman religion by others.[[24]] As many of his economic, provincial, and military policies reveal, he was efficient and practical in much that he undertook, yet he also did nothing to hide the harsher despotic realities of his rule. This fact, combined with his solitary personality and frequent absences from Rome, guaranteed a harsh portrayal of his rule. The ultimate truths of his reign remain difficult to know.I don't want to ask how they might define ultimate truths.... Anyway, this view is taken to task by Peter Wiseman, who goes so far as to call Domitian The Saddam Hussein of the Roman Empire: Why is it, then, that modern scholars are eager to whitewash Domitian? His latest biographer, Brian W. Jones, announces in the preface to his book that `the traditional portrait of Domitian as a bloodthirsty tyrant has not completely disappeared and still needs emendation'. Dr Jones begins his section on Domitian and the Senate with a reference to Suetonius' list of eleven ex-consuls put to death, and he rightly notes that it represents `only the most eminent' of Domitian's senatorial victims. But his conclusion runs: `So Domitian's attitude to the aristocracy was that of a benevolent despot.' If that is benevolence, what would count as malice?Of course, it took around 1900 years for the modern revisionists to pooh-pooh Tacitus and Pliny, and decide that Domitian wasn't such a bad guy after all. Saddam Hussein is way ahead of that game..... So far ahead, in fact, that I'd be willing to speculate that by comparing Domitian to him, Mr. Wiseman has inadvertently assisted the modern relativistic view. (I can see it now: "Like Saddam Hussein, who governed Iraq well, Domitian has been much misjudged and misunderstood....") But bear in mind that Wiseman was writing way back in 1996. A time when nearly everyone thought Saddam Hussein was bad.... posted by Eric on 07.27.04 at 05:18 PM
Comments
Quite true! (Although rogues like Saddam Hussein and Stalin always try to cast themselves as popular heroes. Sometimes this works, which begs the question: does popular equal good?) A point I've made before is that Roman historians often wrote for the courts of later emperors who may have had their own reasons for historical rewrites. Eric Scheie · July 27, 2004 06:11 PM Interesting spectrumological questions there in those comments above. I just want to say that I just voted for Domitian just before I saw this post. Synchronicity? Anyway... Hail to the Roman Empire! Wanda loves the decadence of the Roman Empire. Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Elder) the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · July 28, 2004 11:44 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
A good rule of thumb when reading Roman history, according to an old professor of mine, is to regard the villainous emperors as popular heroes. The historians, afterall, were aristocrats, ever at odds with popular rule.
Tiberius and his minnows do smell a bit fishy...