Exam no. B231107
2017 words
Analyse the reign of Domitian in an attempt to decide if their reputation in modern
scholarship is warranted. (2000 words)
Within modern scholarship, there have been many attempts to rehabilitate the reign of
Domitian, whereas in ancient sources we see historians depict the Emperor as a tyrant who
terrorised the aristocracy and senatorial class. In this essay, I will argue that his reputation in
modern scholarship as a “moderately decent man” as described by Waters1 and not different
to emperors before and after him is not warranted, though one cannot deny he had excellent
administration skills and that his reign brought stability and prosperity to the Roman empire.
Firstly, ancient historians portray Domitian as an envious sibling who showed no compassion
for his older brother’s death. Suetonius suggests that Domitian never stopped plotting against
his brother2 and that “he bestowed no honour upon him apart from deification, often assailing
his memory in ambiguous phrases”3. Dio also notes that when Titus was deified, this was the
“opposite of what he really desired”4. However, modern scholars such as Mattingly prove to
us that Suetonius’ biography contains bias. Domitian did indeed commemorate his brother
through coinage5, temples6 and inscriptions. Thus, one could argue that modern scholarship’s
view of Domitian is valid and that ancient sources seem to use his enmity with Titus as a
narrative for his cruel nature.
Scholars have argued that the presentation of Domitian in ancient sources is flawed and
exaggerated due to the bias of the writers and the disapproving nature of the aristocratic class.
1
Waters (1964), p.69
2
Suetonius, Dom. 2.2
3
Jones (1996), p. 27
4
Cassius Dio, Roman History, 67.2.6
5
Mattingly (1996) n.2.313
6
Anderson 1983: p.95–7
2017 words
Analyse the reign of Domitian in an attempt to decide if their reputation in modern
scholarship is warranted. (2000 words)
Within modern scholarship, there have been many attempts to rehabilitate the reign of
Domitian, whereas in ancient sources we see historians depict the Emperor as a tyrant who
terrorised the aristocracy and senatorial class. In this essay, I will argue that his reputation in
modern scholarship as a “moderately decent man” as described by Waters1 and not different
to emperors before and after him is not warranted, though one cannot deny he had excellent
administration skills and that his reign brought stability and prosperity to the Roman empire.
Firstly, ancient historians portray Domitian as an envious sibling who showed no compassion
for his older brother’s death. Suetonius suggests that Domitian never stopped plotting against
his brother2 and that “he bestowed no honour upon him apart from deification, often assailing
his memory in ambiguous phrases”3. Dio also notes that when Titus was deified, this was the
“opposite of what he really desired”4. However, modern scholars such as Mattingly prove to
us that Suetonius’ biography contains bias. Domitian did indeed commemorate his brother
through coinage5, temples6 and inscriptions. Thus, one could argue that modern scholarship’s
view of Domitian is valid and that ancient sources seem to use his enmity with Titus as a
narrative for his cruel nature.
Scholars have argued that the presentation of Domitian in ancient sources is flawed and
exaggerated due to the bias of the writers and the disapproving nature of the aristocratic class.
1
Waters (1964), p.69
2
Suetonius, Dom. 2.2
3
Jones (1996), p. 27
4
Cassius Dio, Roman History, 67.2.6
5
Mattingly (1996) n.2.313
6
Anderson 1983: p.95–7
