Caligula as satirist

[caesar novus]

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n08/mary-beard/it-was-satire has Mary Beard reviewing Caligula: A Biography by Aloys Winterling . In rather complex fashion which may defy Occams razor, I guess Caligula is being depicted as a sane but unsuccessful political satirist.

 

Maybe the time is ripe to approach Caligula (or the whole empire?) in a historiography... a history of the history of Caligula. A comparison and contrast of past interpretations can help focus on why some points are treated differently, and give at least the illusion of perspective on which sounds best.

 

I am plowing through such a quest in The Hitler of History: Hitler's Biographers on Trial by John Lukacs http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/jan/28/politics . Incidentally he contends Hitler was the anti-Nero... strong artistic/bohemian impulses which he suppressed in the pursuit of politics. Actually wrote passable poetry in WW1, then became politically radicalized by little known red terror, then the reactionary white terror in 1919 Munich.

[caldrail]

It really isn't that much of a mystery. Caligula was immature, emotionally disturbed, and had an inflated ego to drive his nasty sense of humour. If ever there was a young man with too much power, it was him. Christians saw him as an example of decadence, Hollywood saw him as an example of excess, Suetonius saw him as an example of scandal. As with many celebrity rulers people see in him whatever they like.

[caesar novus]

Recently i quoted viggens old post about archeologist darius arya saying he found conclusive evidence caligua was clinically insane. Less recently i posted a poll here for people to vote on his craziness, for which there were many opinions.

 

I like the idea of histriography where you survey past notable opinions and start to weigh them explicitly, instead of averaging them together or falling for one for private reasons.

Edited April 20, 2012 by caesar novus

[caldrail]

The idea that Caligula was insane is as old as Suetonius. I don't think he was a looney at all, but rather a nasty youngster with an ego out of control. Much of the stopries attributed to Caligula that suggest insanity can be interpreted differently.

 

For instane...

 

His horse Incitatus as senator? That was more likely an insult to the senate which Caligula regarded as a bunch of time wasters.

 

Legions collecting sea shells as booty? That was the result of superstitious reluctance on the part of the legions. Caligula was taking the mick out of these supposedly tough warriors and since Neptune was clearly his enemy that day...

 

Taunting Zues in the temples? Probably, but that might be no more than a silly young man showing off and overheard by someone who didn't understand that.

[BedrockBrendan]

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n08/mary-beard/it-was-satire has Mary Beard reviewing Caligula: A Biography by Aloys Winterling . In rather complex fashion which may defy Occams razor, I guess Caligula is being depicted as a sane but unsuccessful political satirist.

 

 

I read this book when it came out and it was quite good in my opinion. My understanding is Winterling hasn't altered the historical consensus too much but I thought he made some very good arguments and approached the source material with some healthy skepticism (though at times his application of skepticism seemed uneven). I would really like to see an academic discussion on the subject to get some point/counter-point. Reading a book like this is great, but one thing I learned from my college days is it really helps to to see the conversation play out in journals, debates or in books written in response.

[thomos]

The idea that Caligula was insane is as old as Suetonius. I don't think he was a looney at all, but rather a nasty youngster with an ego out of control. Much of the stopries attributed to Caligula that suggest insanity can be interpreted differently.

dainik bhasker