The Various Caesars

[Gaius Octavius]

"... Pertinax means 'persistent'...."

 

Does it not have something to do with 'wool'?

[Primus Pilus]

Caldrail - please could you direct me to the ancient source that says that Gaius hated his praenomen. As for the nickname sticking because every other Roman was called Gaius - I'm not sure I can concur there. No Roman of standing was known by his praenomen - except, one presumes, among his own very close family and friends - therefore having an Emperor actually named 'Gaius' would not cause a problem. Tiberius was known as 'Tiberius' after all - his praenomen. I suppose it's a bit like later Royalty - Kings known by their Christian names etc.

 

I can't find where anyone says this. Tacitus' account is unfortunately lost. You may be thinking of the supposed hatred of his relation to Agrippa. Suetonius wrote that Caligula claimed that his mother was born in incest rather than allow an association with Agrippa. What doesn't quite hold water though is the clear archaeological fact that Caligula minted several coins in commemoration of Agrippa.

 

one sample

another

 

My own theory is that the name 'Caligula' was probably never used during his reign, except by his enemies, as a taunt. I think posterity has latched onto it in the same way. The name comes dripping with the traditional picture of a madman. Why should historians use as it as a unique identifer when there was no other emperor called Gaius? There would not be any confusion.

 

It wasn't used in an official capacity as such.. For instance, the name isn't found on coins or statues or various inscriptions (though many of his are lost). For that matter though, as you pointed out, praenomen are generally not found in such circumstances either. However, I think it's fair to say that the name Caligula would not have been insulting to the emperor himself. After all it was truly a term endearment given to him by the legions and an emperors bond with the army was as important as any relationship in the imperial court. It (along with the obvious cognomen of Germanicus) was a constant reminder of his affiliation to the great man and general that was so beloved by the people.

[caldrail]

After all it was truly a term endearment given to him by the legions and an emperors bond with the army was as important as any relationship in the imperial court. It (along with the obvious cognomen of Germanicus) was a constant reminder of his affiliation to the great man and general that was so beloved by the people.

 

Thats not the impression I got. The name reminded him of his troubled childhood and what I tried to explain earlier was that caligula clearly had something of a chip on his shoulder regarding status. If caligula had any regard for the legions I would accept your point, but he treated them with the same arrogant mischief as everyone else. Did he not order them up and down a beach collecting sea-shells instead of actually invading britain?

 

Try Lives of the Caesars by suteonius, I think he refers to the naming problem. I'll have to wade through tacitus again to find anything!

[Primus Pilus]

Thats not the impression I got. The name reminded him of his troubled childhood and what I tried to explain earlier was that caligula clearly had something of a chip on his shoulder regarding status. If caligula had any regard for the legions I would accept your point, but he treated them with the same arrogant mischief as everyone else. Did he not order them up and down a beach collecting sea-shells instead of actually invading britain?

 

That's true if we accept Suetonius verbatim, but as we know the topic of Caligula's intentions on that beach (or perhaps on the Rhine as an alternative location for the event) is hotly debated. The entire affair seems a bit erroneous to me, but I understand the necessity to recognize it for lack of alternative reports. There is enough evidence to suggest that a serious campaign was intended though (the raising of new legions, extensive training and supply, etc.). Regardless, we can be sure that no extensive campaign was ever conducted, but that alone does not indicate that the legionaries themselves felt mistreated.

 

Other than the rather glossed over Gaetulicus incident (which may or may not have included King Ptolemy of Mauretania who was executed in roughly the same time period) there is no great evidence of revolt among the legions against Caligula. I concede that this in itself does not indicate military endearment to him, nor the idea that Gaius liked being called Caligula, but I don't see any evidence that he mistreated the legionaries. Perhaps he confused the hell out of them, but it doesn't seem there was any lasting damage. They were on the payroll after all, so a trip to the beach with their beloved ego maniacal son of the great Germanicus might not have been all that bad. I can certainly understand some grumbling to the effect of "While the hell did that crazy bastard march us all the way over for this?" but again there seems to be no evidence of legionary displeasure in the form of disloyalty. (which may or may not also help to dispel the notions of complete erratic behavior, but that's not really the point of this discussion)

 

In any case, I may be missing your original point Caldrail. Originally, if I read it right, you said that Caligula did not like to be called Gaius. Are you saying that due to his concern with station he also did not like Caligula and rather preferred only Caesar or Germanicus or something to that effect? I did find in the Annals that Agrippina wished her son to be called Caesar Caligula rather than Caligula alone (Tac. Ann. 1.69), but unfortunately I'm unable to find any indication of what the adult Caligula preferred. In the end, I suppose its a rather trivial debate, but I don't see any reason to think that he wouldn't mind the connection to the name Caligula as a reminder to the legions of past love and loyalty.

 

After all that rambling, what I mean to suggest is that tolerating a name for political gain it and preferring it are two entirely different sets of circumstances.

[caldrail]

I'm a little frustrated because I can't find the original reference that I remember reading. For that reason I apologise to Augusta until such time as I can prove my case.

 

As regards the legions, I don't think caligula cared one jot about them. There were mere soldiers for crying out loud. However, we do see his disrespect of individuals in the case of watchwords, which was a source of mickey-taking for him. In fact, this behaviour probably cost him his life because Cassius Chaerea did not take kindly to being called effeminate given his proud war record.

 

I think caligula wasn't concerned with political gain over his name, rather that people should jolly well recognise his superiority.

[Divi Filius]

I think caligula wasn't concerned with political gain over his name, rather that people should jolly well recognise his superiority.

 

I would think that if Caligula did not actually like the name there would have been some exaggerated account of him punishing somebody over it, however I can't find anything of the nature.

 

I can't find anything much else to add that, since practically everything has been brought up(you miss all the action when you arrive late).

Edited March 2, 2007 by Divi Filius

[Nephele]

Caldrail - please could you direct me to the ancient source that says that Gaius hated his praenomen. As for the nickname sticking because every other Roman was called Gaius - I'm not sure I can concur there. No Roman of standing was known by his praenomen - except, one presumes, among his own very close family and friends - therefore having an Emperor actually named 'Gaius' would not cause a problem. Tiberius was known as 'Tiberius' after all - his praenomen. I suppose it's a bit like later Royalty - Kings known by their Christian names etc.

 

I can't find where anyone says this.

 

There's an article that appears on various websites, which states that Caligula "would end up hating this name, but he also hated the name 'Gaius'." The article gives numerous primary sources, but doesn't make clear precisely which source (if any of these) was used for this information. Here's one site where this article appears.

 

Unfortunately, the article isn't footnoted and, as with a lot of info found on the 'net, may be questionable. If no one here has managed to find the primary source for this information about Caligula having hated his name, then I would certainly question the information in that article.

 

-- Nephele

[Divi Filius]

To me it just doesnt make sense. Caligula could not have been insane enough to believe that he was popular among the men in Rome. The fact that he handed out 100 denarii to each soldier following the attack on Neptune, means he did consider the men. If he did not secure the throne through the soldiers, then how would he expect to hold it?

[caldrail]

To me it just doesnt make sense. Caligula could not have been insane enough to believe that he was popular among the men in Rome. The fact that he handed out 100 denarii to each soldier following the attack on Neptune, means he did consider the men. If he did not secure the throne through the soldiers, then how would he expect to hold it?

 

No emperor handed out donatives because he thought the men deserved it. These payments were to buy their loyalty, not reward it. Caligula reportedly said "Let them hate me as long as they fear me", which isn't the statement of someone who worries unduly about popularity. Caligula was not an accomplished politician in any way. He was too self centred for that. having been given power over the empire, he regarded himself as a god and expected everyone else to recognise that. Not insanity I should point out, just the result of an over-inflated ego. Caligula seems to suffer from the behavioural problems that we might associate with child-stars today. He grew up in the public eye, probably forever being told how to behave yet being feted by the public. Once freed by his accession his immature (and utterly malignant) mischief rises to the surface unrestrained by lesser mortals.

 

Caligula was actually popular amongst the roman public. He was cheered on by the plebs. It was the senate or those who dealt with him personally who became disenchanted with his ways.

 

I draw your attention to the embassy of Philo that visited Caligula with complaints on behalf of the jews. Clearly Philo expected he might be executed for his trouble, yet Caligula gives them the run-around to deflate their arguement and then dismisses them as misguided. Truth is he never took them seriously to begin with.