This is an excellent and well-researched essay, though I do disagree to some extent with the conclusion. I agree that many Roman histories are to various extents unreliable, with a notable example being the portrayal of Tiberius in Tacitus' "Annales" probably being more of a discussion of Domitian through the medium of Tiberius than a di…
This is an excellent and well-researched essay, though I do disagree to some extent with the conclusion. I agree that many Roman histories are to various extents unreliable, with a notable example being the portrayal of Tiberius in Tacitus' "Annales" probably being more of a discussion of Domitian through the medium of Tiberius than a discussion of Tiberius himself. However, with regard to Elagabalus, I would likely favour the views of historians who prefer to filter the sources than to disregard them entirely. Whilst some of the accounts are fictional and a large number are exaggerated, I do not believe that these sources are completely without some merit. I will need to read more of the works that you cite and others before I can fully judge. This has given me a lot to think about, especially in regard to changing Roman perceptions of freedom and the relationship between the senatorial class and the Principate.
Thank you. That's interesting about Tacitus. It echoes a theory I have seen some historians advance that Suetonius's biography of Tiberius is really about Hadrian. If it has been food for thought, at least it was of some use. Be interested if you have any further thoughts after looking through some of the citations. Happy reading!
Could you please post some more information about that theory regarding Suetonius's writings about Tiberius? I would be quite interested in reading it. I wish I could likewise supply better links and citations for the discussion of Tiberius being a cipher for Domitian other than the link below this paragraph, but I am trying to remember something mentioned in an undergraduate lecture or seminar. I think part of the conflation of the two also comes from the fact that Titus and Domitian restored issues of coinage that had existed under Tiberius.
The essay was certainly more than just food for thought, as I did thoroughly enjoy it and it was enlightening, as I am more familiar with the earlier Principate than I am with the Severan period (I have experience of identifying and recording coins from the Severan period and have read some things about it, but I am deeply aware of my own ignorance on the topic, even if I have likely come off as a bit too confident). I hope I did not phrase myself too sharply, as I do understand and agree with many of the critiques of the literary sources. I just instinctively disagree with some historians who seek to throw away the literary sources regarding Elagabalus, since, as you mentioned, this raises questions as to why writings about other emperors should be accepted. I will need to delve into my books and those that you have cited to be able to properly articulate a more detailed response especially on the topic of the Elagabalium, since it reminds me of some discussions I remember about the issue of archaeological evidence regarding the Italian countryside in the first century BC and the writings of Plutarch. I look forward to reading more of your essays, especially more relating to Rome.
You didn't come off that way at all! (Not that I would have minded; many people know a great deal more than me, and ancient history by its nature permits of multiple interpretations.) I just went to check what I thought was the source re Suetonius/Tiberius, and I was wrong. It was Tacitus. I'd got mixed up because of the dates and Suetonius's association and fall from favour with Hadrian.
This is an excellent and well-researched essay, though I do disagree to some extent with the conclusion. I agree that many Roman histories are to various extents unreliable, with a notable example being the portrayal of Tiberius in Tacitus' "Annales" probably being more of a discussion of Domitian through the medium of Tiberius than a discussion of Tiberius himself. However, with regard to Elagabalus, I would likely favour the views of historians who prefer to filter the sources than to disregard them entirely. Whilst some of the accounts are fictional and a large number are exaggerated, I do not believe that these sources are completely without some merit. I will need to read more of the works that you cite and others before I can fully judge. This has given me a lot to think about, especially in regard to changing Roman perceptions of freedom and the relationship between the senatorial class and the Principate.
Thank you. That's interesting about Tacitus. It echoes a theory I have seen some historians advance that Suetonius's biography of Tiberius is really about Hadrian. If it has been food for thought, at least it was of some use. Be interested if you have any further thoughts after looking through some of the citations. Happy reading!
Could you please post some more information about that theory regarding Suetonius's writings about Tiberius? I would be quite interested in reading it. I wish I could likewise supply better links and citations for the discussion of Tiberius being a cipher for Domitian other than the link below this paragraph, but I am trying to remember something mentioned in an undergraduate lecture or seminar. I think part of the conflation of the two also comes from the fact that Titus and Domitian restored issues of coinage that had existed under Tiberius.
https://ancientromanhistory31-14.com/home/tiberius/source-issues-tiberius-and-tacitus/domitian-and-tiberius/
The essay was certainly more than just food for thought, as I did thoroughly enjoy it and it was enlightening, as I am more familiar with the earlier Principate than I am with the Severan period (I have experience of identifying and recording coins from the Severan period and have read some things about it, but I am deeply aware of my own ignorance on the topic, even if I have likely come off as a bit too confident). I hope I did not phrase myself too sharply, as I do understand and agree with many of the critiques of the literary sources. I just instinctively disagree with some historians who seek to throw away the literary sources regarding Elagabalus, since, as you mentioned, this raises questions as to why writings about other emperors should be accepted. I will need to delve into my books and those that you have cited to be able to properly articulate a more detailed response especially on the topic of the Elagabalium, since it reminds me of some discussions I remember about the issue of archaeological evidence regarding the Italian countryside in the first century BC and the writings of Plutarch. I look forward to reading more of your essays, especially more relating to Rome.
You didn't come off that way at all! (Not that I would have minded; many people know a great deal more than me, and ancient history by its nature permits of multiple interpretations.) I just went to check what I thought was the source re Suetonius/Tiberius, and I was wrong. It was Tacitus. I'd got mixed up because of the dates and Suetonius's association and fall from favour with Hadrian.