Tiberius Caesar by David Shotter

Tiberius Caesar Reviews

• 
  James Miller

  I have been recommending this book to my A-Level Classics students for some years because it is short, broken into sensible chapters (they map onto the A-Level specification), and not very technical. I thought I would sit down and read it for the first time since my A-Levels and have been less impressed than I might have been.
  
  I didn't like the lack of clear referencing even to Tacitus etc. (
  The Annals (Hackett Classics)is the best translation) never mind to modern sources "sometimes alleged [by whom?]", so that passages such as (p.21) on the accession discuss readings from Levick's
  Tiberius the Politician without naming it. This is not consistent, in one or two places Tacitus is referenced (e.g. p.77).
  
  In places Shotter offers a reading at odds with the evidence without arguing for it or even noting that it is at odds. This is most clear on p.29 "his acceptance and use of the powers of a censor", which is in stark contradiction to Tacitus III.52 "But Tiberius--having often pondered to himself whether such surging desires could be confined, whether their confinement would inflict a greater loss on the state, and how undignified it would be to handle something which he could not attain or which, if sustained, would entail ignominy and infamy for illustrious men" I would recommend Levick p.95 on this.
  
  In still other places Shotter allows his language to mislead and to blur essential nuance. This is most notable in his description of the Guard being concentrated within Rome (p.95 and passim). The Praetorian camp was deliberately Outside Rome, beyond the Pomerium (the sacred boundary of the city). Soldiers were not generally supposed to be in the city.
  
  I was not entirely convinced by the reading on Drusus as stand in for Germanicus's sons after 19CE either, nor by the claim that Tiberius showed slavish obedience to Augustus' precedent: he said so, but (inter alia) he abolished Augustus's Consilium (council), moved elections from the people to the Senate, ruled as an absentee princeps, failed to travel to the provinces... etc. etc. Augustus had a lot of conflicting precedents from which a cunning Tiberius could pick.
  
  Shotter also seems to follow Tacitus in projecting Sejanus' malign influence very far back in Tiberius's reign (p.48 and following, though of course not referencing, Tacitus Ann. I.69 "Already Agrippina was more influential with the armies than legates, than leaders: the woman had suppressed a mutiny which the princeps's name had been unable to stop. These thoughts were kept burning and piled high by Sejanus, who, with his experience of Tiberius' behaviour, sowed hatreds for the distant future, to be stored away and brought out when grown." )
  It seems highly unlikely that Sejanus in 15CE, when Germanicus, and Drusus, and Nero, Drusus, and Gaius, all stood very far in advance of him, had any such plans, or that Tacitus knew what Sejanus had whispered into Tiberius's ears.
  
  It is a good book for A-Level, but it disappointed in terms of rigour. Shotter's readings may be right (he is a widely published expert), but the book could have been more open about what is and what is not evident in the sources and much clearer about which articles etc. in the brief bibliography apply to which claims made. I would also say that the brief passage in the Appendix on sources read like a very brief version of Wallace-Hadrill's
  Suetonius: The Scholar and His Caesars without all of its genre insights (the book is not in the bibliography, but some articles by Hadrill are.
  
• 
  Christopher

  Mediocre. It seems an attempt at giving a fair portrayal of an often unkindly-considered old man who happened to find himself princeps of the Roman Empire due to the machinations of his intriguing mother. A number of things were distinctly absent, such as anything beyond mention of rumors of improper behavior on Tiberius's part, though with nothing about what that behavior was; also, Germanicus's death was not portrayed in enough depth for my liking. I mainly read it to see how Robert Graves's portrait in I, Claudius stands up, and frankly, being only half-familiar with the primary source material, I almost prefer Graves for a biography of Tiberius Caesar.
• 
  Veronika

  im literally just going through the books i studied for my major work and it's giving me year 12 flashbacks
• 
  Tomas

  A good, short introduction.
• 
  Christina

  good for what it is, a quick introduction to Tiberiius. A little too quick, though. I don't think I can recommend it for readers new to this era and complicated family. The people pass in and out too fast that if you don't actually know who they are already you miss their significance. But it is so brief, and doesn't really explore Tiberius' character too indepth that I can't recommend it for seasoned readers.