Was Caligula really a monster?

[keturion]

Okay, here it goes: in popular culture, there is a certain definite impression of who Caius Caligula might have been. Robert Graves has (brilliantly) cemented that impression for us.

 

But I wonder. Almost all of the sources are Senatorial. And none that I have read is contemporary, except Josephus, and there is nothing disturbing there.

 

If you consider that 1) oratory in the time of the Caesars was nothing more than a mere rhetorical (and profitable) exercise, 2) Cicero's speeches show how lying to make a point was not beyond the norm, and 3) the story from the time of the Gracchi brothers until Nerva's succession was one of struggle between Senate and the equites...

 

I am piqued by what I read at the end of Plutarch's life of Antonius. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but I trust Plutarch more than any other of the other historians covering that period. He is so open, so fresh, and feels so honest. I've read a lot of him, and I trust him more than any Pope. And he writes: "From this marriage [Antonia and Drusus] sprang Germanicus and Claudius; of these, Claudius afterwards came to the throne, and of the children of Germanicus, Caius reigned with distinction, but for a short time only, and was then put to death with his wife and child..." [Life of Antonius, 87]

 

Caius can only be the infamous Caligula. Or am I wrong?

[iolo]

Okay, here it goes: in popular culture, there is a certain definite impression of who Caius Caligula might have been. Robert Graves has (brilliantly) cemented that impression for us.

 

But I wonder. Almost all of the sources are Senatorial. And none that I have read is contemporary, except Josephus, and there is nothing disturbing there.

 

If you consider that 1) oratory in the time of the Caesars was nothing more than a mere rhetorical (and profitable) exercise, 2) Cicero's speeches show how lying to make a point was not beyond the norm, and 3) the story from the time of the Gracchi brothers until Nerva's succession was one of struggle between Senate and the equites...

 

I am piqued by what I read at the end of Plutarch's life of Antonius. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but I trust Plutarch more than any other of the other historians covering that period. He is so open, so fresh, and feels so honest. I've read a lot of him, and I trust him more than any Pope. And he writes: "From this marriage [Antonia and Drusus] sprang Germanicus and Claudius; of these, Claudius afterwards came to the throne, and of the children of Germanicus, Caius reigned with distinction, but for a short time only, and was then put to death with his wife and child..." [Life of Antonius, 87]

 

Caius can only be the infamous Caligula. Or am I wrong?

 

Isn't what we get almost invariably senatorial opinion plus colourful gossip, history as the propaganda of the rich and literate? I'm sure huge wrong is generally done, but what's our answer? We can go back as far as Shakespeare and say, for instance, that he is falsifying and that MacBeth was, on all the other accounts we have, a pretty good king, but when it's as far back as Caligula, what are we to do? Makes you grind your teeth, doesn't it!

[Ingsoc]

I hardly say that Josephus account reflect well on Caligula actions, he almost started a war that would consume Judea (and most likely the provinces in the vicinity) and for what? just to satisfy his own ego and delusions of godhood.

 

You also should check out "The embassy to Gaius" by Philo, especially the account of his audience with Caligula, which again doesn't reflect good on the character of the young emperor.

 

As for your "senatorial history" argument, you quit right, like writers of most histories the Roman history was written by the rich and powerful. But what of it? there were others emperors that were disliked by the senatorial class but none of them was describe in the same way as Caligula, in the end the argument of senatorial bias reach a dead end and one must admit there was probably a grain of truth in all the stories about Caligula.

[keturion]

I think there is a difference between being the monster depicted by Suetonius and exercising normal, political judgment. It always seemed so unlikely that Tiberius or Caius were the depraved criminals their Senatorial biographers would have them believe.

 

My assumption has always been that until the time of Nerva, there was a struggle to find the balance between the powers of the Senate and the princeps. The princeps had the powers of a tribune for life and could also order executions, so any leverage granted the Senate could only be because of custom and the desire to placate would-be assassins. Octavian was smart and the Senate accepted him; Tiberius had a harder time of it. I think Caius - being young and impetuous - sought to sideline them altogether. That is to say, truly make them irrelevant. At the same time, there were still those loyal to the form of government where the consuls were supreme (the Republic) who were willing to take action, and I think these two forces combined to bring out Caius' assassination after a brief reign. After that came all the character assassination.

 

I just find it interesting that Plutarch says he served with "distinction". He must have done very well by some people in the Empire. It's fun to speculate...

[GhostOfClayton]

Perhaps one way to test the theory is by looking at the health of the empire during the period of his reign. I'm not knowlegable enough to comment on that, but maybe someone else here is.

[Ingsoc]

Sorry but I never bought this whole theory of a senatorial faction that struggle against the power of the princeps, Augustus had no problem ordering around in the supposedly senatorial provinces, even after the assassination of Caligula they didn't seriously debate about returning the republic, in fact some of the senators saw themselves worthy to be the next princpes.

 

There were certainly senators which show a spirit of independence from time to time, but they know their limits and by no mean were part of any faction who strove to revive the senate as the ruling body in Rome, the truth is that the free senate was literally exterminate in the battle of Philippi at 42 BC and their succor understand the necessity of the princeps rule and, as Tacitus brilliantly put it, were satisfy with the symbols of liberty.

[Fulvia]

I'm going to be "that one" and blow my own horn here, but there is quite a fascinating read on Caligula that Sam Wilkinson wrote (my review of which can be read here) and he does a most thorough job of trying to chisel away all the debris the senatorial propaganda and historical haters left behind on Caligula. There are a number of stock accusations you can find against most disliked lofty public figures, particularly in the late Republic and early Empire such as being mentally unstable, unhealthy god-complex, blood thirsty spend thrifts etc. Kind of like when you're in grade school everyone you didn't like smelled bad and was a loser- even if that's wasn't necessarily or entirely true.

 

Caligula no doubt had a few complexes, some deviant practices and a twisted sense of humor, maybe he was even something of an evil genius.

 

And he writes: "From this marriage [Antonia and Drusus] sprang Germanicus and Claudius; of these, Claudius afterwards came to the throne, and of the children of Germanicus, Caius reigned with distinction, but for a short time only, and was then put to death with his wife and child..." [Life of Antonius, 87]

 

Caius can only be the infamous Caligula. Or am I wrong?

 

That's what I would say- that Gaius is the same as Gaius Caligula

Edited June 17, 2011 by Fulvia

[caldrail]

Sorry but I never bought this whole theory of a senatorial faction that struggle against the power of the princeps, Augustus had no problem ordering around in the supposedly senatorial provinces, even after the assassination of Caligula they didn't seriously debate about returning the republic, in fact some of the senators saw themselves worthy to be the next princpes.

 

There were certainly senators which show a spirit of independence from time to time, but they know their limits and by no mean were part of any faction who strove to revive the senate as the ruling body in Rome, the truth is that the free senate was literally exterminate in the battle of Philippi at 42 BC and their succor understand the necessity of the princeps rule and, as Tacitus brilliantly put it, were satisfy with the symbols of liberty.

 

After the assassination of Claigula the Praetorians took the in iniative and chose Claudius as a figurehead Caesar to ensure their lucrative employment continued. In fact, the senate were generally not in a mood to allow another Caesar, and only the risk of violence brought them to the conclusion (rather quickly as it turned out) that Claudius was going to have to be accepted.

 

At this stage it was by no means assured that the Caesars would continue. Augustus had survived and eventually won the senate over, but Tiberius had not presented an equally capable image and lets not forget that during his reign many senators were disposed of by Sejanus, a regime that was hardly liable to endear itself to the wealthy politicians of Rome.

 

Caligula was brought in with most assuming he was going to be a breath of fresh air. The young Caesar was very popular with the masses and indeed remained so despite the suetonian malarkey. It was Caligula's attitude toward the senators that sealed his fate. Partly Caligula was a young man with little self restraint, excessive personal power, a seriously nasty sense of humour, but also he was regarding the senate as an obstacle to his rule. The story that Caligula wanted his horse Incitatus made a senator was a direct reference to this. Even this horse could do a better job than you idiot politicians.

 

Clearly the assassination of Claigula was unexpected. The senators who had any ideas of ascending to the throne weren't in any position to make their move, having been forced to remain careful about speech and deed, and with the Praetorians effectively forcing the seante to accept Claudius (who was very keen, once convinced to become Caesar by the Praetorians, to cement his rule with acts of political benefice and a military invasion of Britain), the chance of any serious senatorial coup, either personal or republican, had been lost.