the inaccuracies of caligula's reputation presented by ancient sources
Caligula’s character and reign have been deemed by history to be despotic in nature. This reputation has been founded upon the works of ancient sources, namely Seneca, Claudius and Suetonius whom have created an inaccurate and biased perception of the emperor. This has led to a new revisionist approach to the sources on Caligula, as modern historians evaluate the reliability of these sources.
Seneca on Caligula
Seneca was an ancient source who promoted the perception of Caligula as a deranged and destructive ruler. The ancient Roman philosopher and contemporary of Caligula is a confirmed opponent of the emperor, presenting the exaggerated opinion that “ Nature produced (Caligula) in order to show what unlimited vice would be capable of when combined with unlimited power” (Seneca cited in Ferrill. 1991. 102) and attesting to the emperor’s insanity. Seneca’s statement is disputed by Professor of History, Arther Ferrill, who presents a modern perspective on the emperor, stating “The insanity at issue here is not the madness and calculated cruelty of a Hitler, a Stalin or a Tojo. It is purely wild, arbitrary, irrational craziness- sometimes cruel, sometimes humorous, occasionally driven by perverted policy but usually simply mercurial and capricious” (Ferrill. 1991. 8).
Explaining this unfavourable perception
Seneca had begun his rise to prominence within the government prior to Caligula’s reign, and through his oratory skills he was well respected by the Roman elite by the time of the emperor’s accession. Associate Professor of Classics, Emily Wilson explains Caligula’s suspicion of Seneca, stating, “Gaius Caligula did not like him; perhaps he was wary of his influence among powerful people.” (Wilson. 2010. 10). It is also argued that Caligula, the only Julio-Claudian emperor that learnt the art of oratory, envied Seneca’s skills and thus denounced him. In turn this sparked Seneca’s hatred of Caligula and in 39 AD he was implicated in a conspiracy against the emperor and narrowly avoided being executed. As well as his strong belief in stoicism (a virtue that Caligula undeniably lacked) (Wilson. 2010), this event would most definitely account for the inevitable bias from Seneca against Caligula. Caligula’s mistrust of Seneca and his attempted removal of the philosopher seems more a calculated move to derail the popularity of a potential threat, but this instead pushed Seneca further into the hands of his opponents.
Seneca was an ancient source who promoted the perception of Caligula as a deranged and destructive ruler. The ancient Roman philosopher and contemporary of Caligula is a confirmed opponent of the emperor, presenting the exaggerated opinion that “ Nature produced (Caligula) in order to show what unlimited vice would be capable of when combined with unlimited power” (Seneca cited in Ferrill. 1991. 102) and attesting to the emperor’s insanity. Seneca’s statement is disputed by Professor of History, Arther Ferrill, who presents a modern perspective on the emperor, stating “The insanity at issue here is not the madness and calculated cruelty of a Hitler, a Stalin or a Tojo. It is purely wild, arbitrary, irrational craziness- sometimes cruel, sometimes humorous, occasionally driven by perverted policy but usually simply mercurial and capricious” (Ferrill. 1991. 8).
Explaining this unfavourable perception
Seneca had begun his rise to prominence within the government prior to Caligula’s reign, and through his oratory skills he was well respected by the Roman elite by the time of the emperor’s accession. Associate Professor of Classics, Emily Wilson explains Caligula’s suspicion of Seneca, stating, “Gaius Caligula did not like him; perhaps he was wary of his influence among powerful people.” (Wilson. 2010. 10). It is also argued that Caligula, the only Julio-Claudian emperor that learnt the art of oratory, envied Seneca’s skills and thus denounced him. In turn this sparked Seneca’s hatred of Caligula and in 39 AD he was implicated in a conspiracy against the emperor and narrowly avoided being executed. As well as his strong belief in stoicism (a virtue that Caligula undeniably lacked) (Wilson. 2010), this event would most definitely account for the inevitable bias from Seneca against Caligula. Caligula’s mistrust of Seneca and his attempted removal of the philosopher seems more a calculated move to derail the popularity of a potential threat, but this instead pushed Seneca further into the hands of his opponents.
Claudius' role in the lasting perception of Caligula
Caligula’s successor, and uncle, Claudius, initiated a defamatory campaign against Caligula for his own imperial purposes. This was supported by sources such as Seneca who had existing hostilities the emperor. Seneca later attempted to seek approval from the new emperor Claudius by stating that his predecessor had “wasted and utterly destroyed the empire” (Seneca cited in Barrett. 1989. 16). This is vastly unsupported, and a slew of contradictions exist that oppose this idea. Under Caligula, the Roman provinces continued to remain secure, as did the frontiers. Parthia was appeased with a policy of modus vivendi and German invasions into Gaul were suppressed. (Barrett. 1989, Key. n.d) Alternately, the argument that Rome was financially ruined by Caligula is called into question by the fact that during Claudius’s reign there were sufficient funds to erase taxes and initiate vast infrastructure projects. Despite this, Claudius attempted to defame Caligula within Rome and Rome’s subordinates (Key. n.d. online) and attribute the cause of his murder to his cruel personality. He wanted to avoid the idea that Caligula's death was attributed to his imperialism which may have negatively impacted upon Claudius’s reign (Barrett. 1989). Ironically, Caligula employed a similar political strategy himself. When he was criticised for his suspected incestuous relationships with his sisters, he purported that his predecessor Tiberius was essentially a pedophile. David Potter, Professor of Roman history explains “In response, Caligula’s propagandists now sought to deflect public attention by disseminating lurid stories about how Tiberius had spent his waning years” (Potter. 2013. 70) This is affirmed by author Jay Key, who states “Just as Caligula instituted the practice of destroying a predecessor's image, so did Claudius. Claudius' campaign to denigrate the name of Caligula, in order, to achieve popular support began immediately in A.D. 41 upon the assassination of Caligula…Regardless, Claudius took the necessary steps to portray Caligula as ineffective and essentially evil, so the population of Rome would give the fault to the individual that was emperor and not the existence of the office itself.” (Key. n.d. online). The influence of Claudius is one of the reasons that a negative depiction of Caligula exists despite his various successes.
Caligula’s successor, and uncle, Claudius, initiated a defamatory campaign against Caligula for his own imperial purposes. This was supported by sources such as Seneca who had existing hostilities the emperor. Seneca later attempted to seek approval from the new emperor Claudius by stating that his predecessor had “wasted and utterly destroyed the empire” (Seneca cited in Barrett. 1989. 16). This is vastly unsupported, and a slew of contradictions exist that oppose this idea. Under Caligula, the Roman provinces continued to remain secure, as did the frontiers. Parthia was appeased with a policy of modus vivendi and German invasions into Gaul were suppressed. (Barrett. 1989, Key. n.d) Alternately, the argument that Rome was financially ruined by Caligula is called into question by the fact that during Claudius’s reign there were sufficient funds to erase taxes and initiate vast infrastructure projects. Despite this, Claudius attempted to defame Caligula within Rome and Rome’s subordinates (Key. n.d. online) and attribute the cause of his murder to his cruel personality. He wanted to avoid the idea that Caligula's death was attributed to his imperialism which may have negatively impacted upon Claudius’s reign (Barrett. 1989). Ironically, Caligula employed a similar political strategy himself. When he was criticised for his suspected incestuous relationships with his sisters, he purported that his predecessor Tiberius was essentially a pedophile. David Potter, Professor of Roman history explains “In response, Caligula’s propagandists now sought to deflect public attention by disseminating lurid stories about how Tiberius had spent his waning years” (Potter. 2013. 70) This is affirmed by author Jay Key, who states “Just as Caligula instituted the practice of destroying a predecessor's image, so did Claudius. Claudius' campaign to denigrate the name of Caligula, in order, to achieve popular support began immediately in A.D. 41 upon the assassination of Caligula…Regardless, Claudius took the necessary steps to portray Caligula as ineffective and essentially evil, so the population of Rome would give the fault to the individual that was emperor and not the existence of the office itself.” (Key. n.d. online). The influence of Claudius is one of the reasons that a negative depiction of Caligula exists despite his various successes.
Suetonius on Caligula
Suetonius is another ancient source that presents an orthodox but unfavourable opinion of Caligula. A Roman biographer and historian, Suetonius is most notably known for his work "The Lives of Twelve Caesars” and his extract on Caligula is one of the main sources of information on the emperor. Initially presenting a favourable perspective of Caligula, Suetonius abruptly discontinues this, stating “So much for Caligula the Emperor, the rest of the history must needs deal with Caligula the Monster” (Suetonius cited in Kean. 2009. 27). He presents claims of Caligula’s uncontrollable nature; obsession with acts of torture and implicates the emperor in involvement with sexual deviancy whilst in Capri, stating "Even in those days, his cruel and vicious character was beyond his control, and he was an eager spectator of torture and executions meted out in punishment. At night, disguised in wig and long robe, he abandoned himself to gluttony and adulterous behaviour" (Suetonius cited in Forrester. n.d. online) These claims appear unrealistic, as contemporary Philo implies that Caligula lived a moderate life in Capri with his great-uncle Tiberius. Caligula's removal of the use of bronze tokens depicting sexual deeds that were presumedly used to pay prostitutes (sphintriae) similarly disputes this. Suetonius alleged that Tiberius was suspicious and critical of Caligula’s personality. This has translated into the mainstream perception of the emperor even though it is not confirmed to be Tiberius’s actual thoughts, and contradicts the sources that say he held Caligula in his affections. Suetonius claims that Tiberius "recognised he (Caligula) had an erratic and unreliable temperament and that he was equal to Sulla in his despotic nature but had none of Sulla's good qualities" (Suetonius cited in Barrett. 1989. 40). This is in contradiction to the fact that when Caligula assumed priesthood, Tiberius referred to his pietas and insoles (the Roman virtues for a sense of duty and good character) (Barrett. 1989). Tiberius is also cited by Suetonius to have said that "Gaius was the ruin of himself and all mankind; and that he was rearing a hydra for the people of Rome, and a Phaeton for all of the world" (Suetonius cited in Forrester. n.d. online). This is disputed by BBC history, who affirm the initial adoration held by the people towards Caligula, stating "he was a welcome change from the dour, absent Tiberius" (BBC. n.d.online).
Influences on Suetonius’ bias
The subjective nature of Suetonius' opinions must be questioned as well as the fact that he was not a contemporary source to Caligula’s reign. Ferrill comments on Suetonius’ reliability, stating “Caligula, victimised by his contemporaries, was also traduced by his biographer, the scandal-monger Suetonius” and refers to him as a “biased and often careless author” (Ferrill. 1991. 9). Suetonius had access to the archives of senators, and, this in itself is cause for concern, as Caligula was not favourable within the senate past 37 AD. The idea that there is a link between Caligula’s eventual murder and existing senatorial conspiracies is explained by author and classical historian, Sam Wilkinson, who states “Gaius was the most up-front and open, hence his quick demise. He has been seen as the first undisguised master of the Roman state. No emperor, this early on in the principate, could so completely alienate the senate and survive.” (Wilkinson. 2005. 80). This provides the senate with incentive to, like Claudius, defame Caligula and rationalise his death. It is uncertain how exposure to these archives impacted upon Suetonius’ bias, but it is a reasonable assumption given his rapid change of perspective towards Caligula after 37 AD which coincidentally corresponds with the initiation of Caligula’s attitude of distain towards the senate.
Suetonius is another ancient source that presents an orthodox but unfavourable opinion of Caligula. A Roman biographer and historian, Suetonius is most notably known for his work "The Lives of Twelve Caesars” and his extract on Caligula is one of the main sources of information on the emperor. Initially presenting a favourable perspective of Caligula, Suetonius abruptly discontinues this, stating “So much for Caligula the Emperor, the rest of the history must needs deal with Caligula the Monster” (Suetonius cited in Kean. 2009. 27). He presents claims of Caligula’s uncontrollable nature; obsession with acts of torture and implicates the emperor in involvement with sexual deviancy whilst in Capri, stating "Even in those days, his cruel and vicious character was beyond his control, and he was an eager spectator of torture and executions meted out in punishment. At night, disguised in wig and long robe, he abandoned himself to gluttony and adulterous behaviour" (Suetonius cited in Forrester. n.d. online) These claims appear unrealistic, as contemporary Philo implies that Caligula lived a moderate life in Capri with his great-uncle Tiberius. Caligula's removal of the use of bronze tokens depicting sexual deeds that were presumedly used to pay prostitutes (sphintriae) similarly disputes this. Suetonius alleged that Tiberius was suspicious and critical of Caligula’s personality. This has translated into the mainstream perception of the emperor even though it is not confirmed to be Tiberius’s actual thoughts, and contradicts the sources that say he held Caligula in his affections. Suetonius claims that Tiberius "recognised he (Caligula) had an erratic and unreliable temperament and that he was equal to Sulla in his despotic nature but had none of Sulla's good qualities" (Suetonius cited in Barrett. 1989. 40). This is in contradiction to the fact that when Caligula assumed priesthood, Tiberius referred to his pietas and insoles (the Roman virtues for a sense of duty and good character) (Barrett. 1989). Tiberius is also cited by Suetonius to have said that "Gaius was the ruin of himself and all mankind; and that he was rearing a hydra for the people of Rome, and a Phaeton for all of the world" (Suetonius cited in Forrester. n.d. online). This is disputed by BBC history, who affirm the initial adoration held by the people towards Caligula, stating "he was a welcome change from the dour, absent Tiberius" (BBC. n.d.online).
Influences on Suetonius’ bias
The subjective nature of Suetonius' opinions must be questioned as well as the fact that he was not a contemporary source to Caligula’s reign. Ferrill comments on Suetonius’ reliability, stating “Caligula, victimised by his contemporaries, was also traduced by his biographer, the scandal-monger Suetonius” and refers to him as a “biased and often careless author” (Ferrill. 1991. 9). Suetonius had access to the archives of senators, and, this in itself is cause for concern, as Caligula was not favourable within the senate past 37 AD. The idea that there is a link between Caligula’s eventual murder and existing senatorial conspiracies is explained by author and classical historian, Sam Wilkinson, who states “Gaius was the most up-front and open, hence his quick demise. He has been seen as the first undisguised master of the Roman state. No emperor, this early on in the principate, could so completely alienate the senate and survive.” (Wilkinson. 2005. 80). This provides the senate with incentive to, like Claudius, defame Caligula and rationalise his death. It is uncertain how exposure to these archives impacted upon Suetonius’ bias, but it is a reasonable assumption given his rapid change of perspective towards Caligula after 37 AD which coincidentally corresponds with the initiation of Caligula’s attitude of distain towards the senate.