Explain the perspectives of the primary

sources of this period. D3R

Callum Vujanovic

The Julio-Claudian period had a variety of sources, yet the primary sources are Tacitus, Casius Dio,
and Suetonius. Each writer had varied perspectives, biases, and shortfalls which hence influenced
their recounting of event.

Tacitus was a Praetor from AD 89 to 93, Tacitus had a wealth of material for his historical writings
however his perspective was influenced by his anti-imperialist and moralising character. Despite his
famous "sine ira et studio”, Luce wrote that it is “doubly compromised: first, by ignorance of
statecraft […]; second, by the desire to write what the powerful wished to hear […] or to express
one’s hatred of them”. Luce explains that Tacitus’ perspective is deeply impacted by his confidence
and opinions. Kenn Webb goes express his anti-imperialist attitude and thus one ought “be aware of
his pro-Republican sentiments” since he had “no love of the principate or of Julio Claudian
emperors”. Moreover, his perspective is shaped by his unchanging values which he reflects through
his “moralising” language and thus his perspective serves more to propagate his views than to
inform (Gildenhard). Tacitus’ perspective is then deeply biased against emperors and anything
imperial thus affecting his historical writings.

Suetonius, a contemporary of Tacitus, had a different approach to writing. His move away from
Tacitus’ moralising and “traditional eulogistic” writing where it is very one sided demonstrates his
perspective as one of “relatively high […] reliability” (Graves). Pliny also portrays his perspective as
one influenced by his quiet and studious character. However, his scandalous narratives, often
related to incest imply that he wrote to “create effect” (Nero; Barrat). Consequently, his perspective
was influenced by a desire to create engaging stories. Nevertheless, Suetonius’ perspective is
reliable to some extent. Meanwhile, Cassius Dio, a Roman Governor and Consul in 300’s AD had to
rely more heavily on other sources (Wiedemann). Yet he prioritised truth and accuracy “[spenting]
many years collecting materials” and compiled his work annalistically hence demonstrating his
perspective as one detached from popular narrative (Alston). It is crucial to note that “Dio’s point of
view is thoroughly Roman” and he was “a thorough believer in the monarchy” (Cary). This influenced
his perspective and must be considered when reading. For example, in his admission of democracies
potential benefits he explains that “its results are seen not to agree with its title” (Dio). This
demonstrates his perspective as one highly influenced by his experience and political beliefs.

Therefore, it is evident through an analysis of the perspectives of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio
that each subsequent historian was deeply impacted by their experience. Consequently, the writers
experience explains their perspective and recounting of events.