Was Caligula Mad?

[AEGYPTUS]

Secondly, the Nemi ships were far from monstrosities. The remains discovered early in the C20th and destroyed in the 1939-45 war, suggest that these were wonderful floating palaces, with mosaics, gilding and heating as well as marble-clad walls. Extravagant and unique they may have been. Monstrous? I doubt it.

 

Phil if that is the case might I ask how on earth something like that could possibly float on the water? Marble walls an Mosaics. If it did float it must have been rather low on the water. From what they found did they work out how something so large and heavy could float?

[phil25]

No idea - but Gaius had a huge ship that brought the obelisk from Egypt that is now in front of St Peter's - it weighed quite a lot. Claudius sank the ship to create a mole/breakwater for his new harbour facilities at Ostia.

 

I watched a TV news report today of a HUGE new cruise ship, and bigger are to follow. THEY float!!

 

All we know is that Gauis' pleasure ships at Nemi worked, at least for a time. Didn't Cleopatra supposedly have some huge galleys at Actium too?

 

Phil

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

[quote name='phil25' date='May 21 2006, 08:25 AM' post=

 

I'd love to see a thorough re-examination of Gaius life and reign by an expert, which sought to look at him as a sane (if troubled) young ruler trying out innovative ideas. A novelist who keeps close to facts might also explore the material well.

 

 

 

Phil

 

 

there is a novelist called allan massie who has wrote a book on caligula, it paints him in a different light than the usual "madman" one, he has also written books on caesar, augustus and tiberius, they are all very interesting books and stick very closely to the truth

 

maximus

[Princeps]

there is a novelist called allan massie who has wrote a book on caligula, it paints him in a different light than the usual "madman" one, he has also written books on caesar, augustus and tiberius, they are all very interesting books and stick very closely to the truth

 

maximus

 

I read Massie's "Caligula". It was quite good, overall. One thing that I did not like was the frequent utterance by the novel's main character (Lucius, the narrator), "What could I say to that?" or "How could I reply to that?" This suggested a lack of imagination, not on the part of Lucius, but the novel's author. Still, an ok book, but I don't think we should rely on his opinion of Caligula, I think he got him all wrong.

Edited May 28, 2006 by Princeps

[phil25]

I know and like Massie's work very much. His research is usually good.

 

I must admit that I had forgotten his caligula - read some years ago - though a copy rests on my shelves.

 

Thanks for reminding me - I'll haul it down and re-visit it.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

My own view is that Caligula wasn't mad - at least not a raving looney. He was a malignant mickey-taker who enjoyed seeing people suffer. He was a young man of questionable maturity given ultimate power, and oh boy was he determined to find out how far he could push it. Emotionally disturbed I would say. Nasty but not evil in the dramatic sense.

 

As for 'I Claudius', we have to remember this was entertainment - a tv adaption of a novel. Not really a source for insight into caligulas character then but a very good series I thoroughly enjoyed for what it was.

[Skarr]

Years ago, I remember reading a play by the great Albert Camus on Caligula. It was quite entertaining and portrays him swinging between megalomania and despair (often suicidal). I thought it was a pretty intelligent reading into the myth that surrounded Caligula's 'madness'. While some thought it might have been part of a carefully calculated act on his part, maybe a simulated madness, he was certainly a disturbed individual, with many insecurities, particularly around his own mortality. I think he was also obsessed with his own power vis a vis the gods and toyed with the idea of his own divinity.

 

It is difficult to contemplate the absolute extent of his power that he wielded and he was grossly unprepared for the responsibilities such power entails. In earlier times, men had to serve at least ten military campaigns to be eligible for even the junior magisterial offices like quaestor, or aedile, with minimum age restrictions. With no real world experience in dealing with men or affairs of the state, Caligula was severely handicapped and probably reacted in a child like fashion with disastrous consequences. It could have been sheer frustration as well, as he had no understanding of how to deal with the experienced senators and the only real weapon he had was to terrorize them and abuse them, which is the reaction of an angry child, when confronted with persons superior in knowledge and intelligence.

[P.Clodius]

My own view is that Caligula wasn't mad - at least not a raving looney. He was a malignant mickey-taker who enjoyed seeing people suffer. He was a young man of questionable maturity given ultimate power, and oh boy was he determined to find out how far he could push it. Emotionally disturbed I would say. Nasty but not evil in the dramatic sense.

My take on him exactly. He was contemptuous of the senate after they handed him in one fell swoop all the powers Augustus and Tiberius had carefully attained over time. Just a kid without restraint and a sick sense of humor, something in which he and I share. Hail Incitatus!!

[Gini]

Where did the madviewpoint come from? Is it a recent one or one that hascome down through the ages? I tend to take the viewpont that where there's smoke there's fire. If the legends talk about madness the it is for a reason After all severe eccentricities in rulers were a lot more acceptable then than now so if a ruler is criticised then he must be extreme.

Before him Tiberius did some very nasty stuff and Livia was monstrous though it would appear the strength behind Augustus

[phil25]

Gini - have you been reading Robert Graves again!!

 

Livia monstrous!!? Hardly a view to be taken seriously.

 

The view of Gaius (Caligula) as "mad bad and dangerous to know" comes down from classical authors including Suetonius.

 

Phil

[Pertinax]

Phil has a good point about Graves here, I meant to back him up on this comment elsewhere on the forum, but neglected to do so. Graves is a good, enthralling and entertaining writer but he "spins a yarn" albeit beautifully. I think the difficulty is that his writing can be engrossing so one tends to accept his words as a truth , rather than a good story. There is a recent biography which I am hunting for , the review of which , in the Sunday Times underscored the fact that Graves' life was , after the First War very much an inward ( and to a degree ultimately frustrated ) looking journey with mythological and historical ideas as his "playthings".

[Gini]

Hi Phil Yes I must adit to enjoy reading Graves However I I read the Roman historians long before that If I remember correctly LIvia was suspected in poisonings etc from them, though a very influential woman. I also remember Tiberius as guilty of vile practices in far more explicit and revolting detail than Graves ever dreamed up. If the Roman historians describe Caligula as mad and bad then I think there is a very good chance he was. Its pretty hard to judge more accurately fromthis distance than virtual eyewitnesses whatever thier prejudices. I do agree with the points made that unlimited powere without maturity and experience would be very potentially corrupting

[phil25]

Where is there a scintilla of evidence for Tiberius' perversions?

 

Are we to assume that the philosophers who shared his retirement on Capreae also shared his sexual tastes? Or is it more likely that men like Nerva indilged in scharly or philosophical discussions.

 

Indeed, where at the Villa Iovis precisely would you suggest the spintriae disported themselves? Hev you seen the place? i have, and it struck me as a retreat, NOT as a bordello!!

 

Where else in Tiberius life of service and duty do we see any suggestion of such tastes? In his loyalty and love for Vipsania from whom he was forced to divorce himself, but with whom he remained in love? It seems to me more likely that his self-exile in Rhodes was to escape a wife whom he disliked (Julia the elder) rather than to enjoy himself sexually - and indeed there is no suggestion that he passed his time in that way during those years.

 

As for Livia, she comes across as a model of Roman matronhood - spinning cloth for her husband's clothing; maintaining a household of old-fashioned rectitude. She was respected, honoured, and long-lived.

 

Who were her victims?

 

In an age when plague was rife and diseases often fatal, Are we to assume Agrippa died at her hand? Or is it more likely that he died at a good age for a Roman (though younger than Augustus at his miraculaously delayed death).

 

Why are not the explanations of the deaths of Gaius and Lucius perfectly acceptable in an age when many died young, and wounds could so easily cause blood-poisoning?

 

Why on earth should she have killed Marcellus (I am going through the men Graves names as her victims). Why accept that her son Drusus died of wounds but not one of Augustus' adopted sons - there is no logic here.

 

Natural causes and a modicum of ill-luck readily explain the accession of Tiberius. He did not need his

mother's help.

 

Claudian women may have been formidable - I am sure Livia was redoubtable and ambitious. But a murderess? No - I see no evidence and no need.

 

Let's rely on history and common sense, not on scadal, novelists and romantic fictions please.

 

Phil

[Gini]

Whoa Phil. I think if you read the historians of the day you will find a lot of what I mentioned. Suetonius' description of Tiberius's "minnows" as he called them was pretty revolting. If I remember correctly he was described as a ****** old goat. I will find some time and put some quotes on.

[phil25]

But my point was not that ancient sources don't mention spintriae and lots of other things (Suetonius appears to have loved scandal and knew it would "sell" - it has). But visit Villa Iovis and see whether it looks like a place to hold "orgies". look at the WHOLE life of Tiberius and see whether the "old goat" epithet fits. That was my point.

 

I don't actually believe any longer that Suetonius is "evidence" for anything. He is a source and cannot be disregarded, but his picture of almost everyone is unbalanced (focusing on the perverse and scandalous) and is coloured by the Roman approach to biography which worked backwards from the final character of a man.

 

I don't doubt that there were rumours about what went on on Capreae when Tiberius was away from Rome for so long, but rumour is not truth and may not even represent "fact " though it may be a fact that there was rumour.

 

I don't find Tiberius a warm or even sympathetic figure, but I do admire him. If you ever get a chance to see the old 60s UK TV series "The Caesars" (recently releaed on dvd) Andre morell gives what is to me a definitive portrait of Tiberius - cold, loyal, driven, tormented, philosophical, sad, lonely and depressive with an undertone of anger and frustration - but of perversion not a hint.

 

Suetonius is colourful, but I think his attractions wane as one reads deeper into the period. Just my personal view, of course.

 

Phil