More Wolfe Whistling

In connection with reading A Man In Full, I was musing yesterday about Tom Wolfe and classical music. Today I find myself musing about Wolfe and classical history.

For those of you who haven't read it, a key theme of the book, which is set in modern Atlanta, is the philosophy of the Roman Stoics. In explaining their background to Charlie Croker, Conrad - the "messenger" of the Stoic virtues - states that Nero reigned in 95 A.D. and that he was succeeded by Domitian.

I hope I'm not being a complete dork about it, but I love classical history and this is wrong on both counts. Nero was the last of the so-called Julio-Claudian emperors (after Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius), members of the family of Augustus who inherited his powers and fashioned them into a true Imperial office. Nero became Emperor in 54 A.D. and eventually killed himself in 68 A.D.

The sudden power vacuum caused a crisis in Roman Imperial politics as several factional rivals attempted to seize the throne. In quick succession between 68 and 69 A.D., Galba, Otho and Vitellius grabbed power, either to be assassinated or kill themselves in short order.

Finally, still in 69 A.D., Vespasian, a hard-headed military commander who had campaigned extensively in the East, seized the throne. With strong military backing, he had no rivals to speak of. Also, he had no interest in the decadent ways into which Roman society had fallen and, in effect, made respectibility fashionable again. He ruled peacefully for 10 years until his death. Vespasian was succeeded by his elder son Titus, who ruled for only two years on his own, although he had assisted Vespasian for some time prior to that.

It was on Titus' death in 81 A.D. that he was succeeded by his brother Domitian. Domitian's rule was a train-wreck, a reprise of the worst aspects of Nero's reign. He was eventually assassinated in 96 A.D.

(By the way, for you fans of the movie Gladiator, after another couple of pretenders came and went in short order, Domitian was eventually succeeded by Nerva, the first of Gibbon's five "Good Emperors". He, in turn, was succeeded by Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and, finally, Marcus Aurelius. Commodus did succeed Aurelius and was, purportedly, killed by a hired gladiator, but he ruled for 12 years before his enemies got to him.)

Wolfe uses a Greek-born philosopher named Epictetus as his primary source of Stoic wisdom. I don't know enough about classical philosophy to say whether Wolfe's extensive quotations are accurate or not. But according to some quick research, Epictetus lived from 55 A.D. to 135 A.D. Obviously, he would not have had anything to do with Nero, but he was, in fact, exiled by Domitian in 89 A.D. for his beliefs.

Wolfe also mentions two other classical figures specifically in connection with Nero's reign. One is a certain Agrippinus, a Stoic, who refused to make a fool of himself by participating in some entertainments commanded by Nero. The other is Florus, a historian, who, according to Wolfe, Agrippinus upbraids for even considering bowing to the Imperial command. Well, the bit about Agrippinus appears to check out. But the only historian named Florus I can find wrote a Cliffnotes version of the works of Livy during the reign of Hadrian (117-138 A.D.).

So why do I bring this up? Well, the glaring error about Roman Imperial succession leapt right out at me when I read it. This had the effect of making me suspicious about the other assertions Wolfe made about classical history and philosophy. Some quick research suggests that Wolfe has, in fact, mangled things a bit.

Of course, A Man In Full is a work of fiction. Artistic license and all that. But it seems to me that Wolfe's message would be more effective if, when he relies on what one might call gen-u-ine facts, he gets them right. When I become aware of this kind of fudging, especially when it involves such easily checkable facts, it tends to dampen my enjoyment of the rest of what the author is trying to say.

Okay.....maybe I am a dork.