Suetonius' Accuracy

[Cornelius Plautus]

Out of curiosity, how accurate is De Vitae Caesarum supposed to be? The lives Suetonius presents seem to be very vivid and detailed, almost to the point where I feel that he is adding things in to entertain his readers. Additionally, I feel as if his Life of Domitian is rather two-sided in its portrayal of Domitian; half of the time he is made out to be cruel and the other half of the time he is made out to be just.

Is there any official sentiment on this matter? If not, what are your opinions.


On a brief unrelated note, I rather liked how Suetonius wrote of Caligula and how he wrote of Titus. I feel as if it demonstrated his ability to write of both disasters and triumphs in equal eloquence. The two phrases that come to mind are 'and now it is time to speak of Caligula the Monster, rather than Caligula the Emperor', and 'Titus' death was more a setback to the world than himself...'. Both seem to evoke powerful imagery, especially compared to denser ancient historians like Polybius and Livy.

[Stavroforos]

It's important to remember that Suetonius is a biographer, meaning that he's not afraid of going overboard in some stories and embellishing with details that may actually be inaccurate.

[SigniferOne]

Suetonius is sometimes viewed as someone focusing on the juicy details, and because of that pilloried as a less than objective historian. But I don't think that's an appropriate criterion at all. As far as I know we have not found any large discrepancies between his descriptions and the truth, so he remains an accurate (albeit salacious) historian.