No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2025
In this paper I argue that the accepted reconstruction of Suetonius’ De viris illustribus has been shaped by unexamined assumptions that have been allowed to take on the appearance of fact. I begin by surveying the scholarly reconstruction of this work from the fifteenth century until today. I then examine two key underlying assumptions: that Suetonius planned and published his series of literary lives as a single compendious work and that it excluded men who were not writers or wrote in Greek; in both cases I propose alternative hypotheses. I lastly test these alternatives by sketching a new approach to a possible Suetonian book De philosophis. I conclude that the more we rid ourselves of a priori assumptions about De viris illustribus, the more clearly we can see that Suetonius’ interests and approach were remarkably consistent throughout all his lives.
I owe thanks to friends and colleagues who read early drafts of this paper and gave me helpful feedback: Jim O’Hara, Katharina Volk, Jim Zetzel and especially Cynthia Damon, who provided me with some crucial insights. I am also indebted to Myles Lavan and the anonymous readers for this journal, whose thoughtful critique and useful suggestions prodded me to address a major structural weakness and helped me improve many points of detail. Lastly, I am particularly grateful to my friend and colleague Bill Race, who read multiple drafts and gave me much sound advice on each.