THE IMPACT OF CALIGULA'S CHILDHOOD ON HIS REIGN
Caligula’s chaotic childhood had a profound effect on him emotionally, and the influences and events of his youth had an overarching impact on his rule as emperor. The violent nature of the deaths of his family and the subsequent fear of Tiberius caused Caligula to repress his emotions and this contributed to his instability later in his reign. The influence of Macro (the Praetorian Prefect) during Caligula's reign is also notable as he was deemed to be controlling the young emperor.
The effect of the death of Caligula's family and his relationship with Tiberius on his mental stability
Caligula’s reaction, or lack thereof, to the death of his family was caused by fear of repercussion from Tiberius. This led to later distress and had a scarring impact on the emperor, exacerbating the effect of his 'breakdown' early in his reign and was partially responsible for his supposed instability. When Caligula’s father Germanicus died under mysterious circumstances in Syria in 19AD, Agrippina, Caligula's mother and Tiberius’ relationship soured. Agrippina openly opposed Sejanus, a praetorian guard who was an intimate associate of Tiberius. In 29AD she was accused of treason and banished by Tiberius, with her sons Nero and Drusus, all of whom died within a few years. Caligula was left to live with his grandmothers, Livia, and then upon her death, Antonia. Kean offers comment on this, stating “his childhood was not a happy one, spent amid an atmosphere of paranoia, suspicion and murder” (Kean. 2009. 26). In 31AD, Tiberius summoned him to Capri. Since Caligula had been considered too young to be implicated in the treasonous affairs of his mother, he retained the affections of the emperor. On Capri, Suetonius states that allies of Sejanus tried to make the teen reveal his unsavoury feelings towards Tiberius but that he responded with indifference, stating “While he remained on that island, many insidious artifices were practised to extort from him complaints about Tiberius, but to his circumspection he avoided falling into the snare. He affected to take no notice of the ill-treatment of his relations, than if nothing had befallen them” (Suetonius cited by Forrester) Barrett corroborates this, commending the youth when he states, “Caligula’s first instinct…would have been to survive, and this would have required him to suppress any possible sense of moral responsibility, and have encouraged him to subordinate all other considerations to his own protection. He needed to constantly be on his guard, and the sources portray him as someone skilled at concealing his true feelings.” (Barrett. 1989. 30). Tiberius was suspicious of Caligula, but was fond of the youth to the extent of naming him heir with Gemellus. Upon Tiberius’ death, despite rumour of his involvement in it, Caligula was pronounced sole emperor by the senate, the army and the people who considered him preferable to Gemellus.
Within a few months of his reign he suffered what is referred to as his ‘breakdown’ or ‘illness’ of which the diagnosis remains unknown. Despite much speculation (Ferrill. 1991, Katz. 1973,Mackay. 2004) as to what the ailment was and because the ancient world had no understanding of mental illness, it is difficult to draw conclusions as to what the emperor suffered from which led to his infamously tyrannical ‘insanity’. There is, however, an orthodox opinion among historians that the events Caligula experienced throughout his childhood and developmental years worsened his mental state and amplified any possible genetic disorder he suffered. This is argued by Ferrill, who states “whether his experiences from the time of his father's death to the moment of his accession, might in themselves have caused him mental instability, and the answer is obviously yes” (Ferrill. 1991. 100). Robert Katz, Professor of medicine hypothesises that Caligula had hyperthyroidism, and corroborates the idea that this illness was sparked by a mentally shocking experience such as what he experienced prior to, and in Capri. (Katz. 1973. online). It is realistic to assume that Caligula’s childhood had an underlying influence on his mental state and later had a detrimental effect on his imperial leadership.
Caligula’s reaction, or lack thereof, to the death of his family was caused by fear of repercussion from Tiberius. This led to later distress and had a scarring impact on the emperor, exacerbating the effect of his 'breakdown' early in his reign and was partially responsible for his supposed instability. When Caligula’s father Germanicus died under mysterious circumstances in Syria in 19AD, Agrippina, Caligula's mother and Tiberius’ relationship soured. Agrippina openly opposed Sejanus, a praetorian guard who was an intimate associate of Tiberius. In 29AD she was accused of treason and banished by Tiberius, with her sons Nero and Drusus, all of whom died within a few years. Caligula was left to live with his grandmothers, Livia, and then upon her death, Antonia. Kean offers comment on this, stating “his childhood was not a happy one, spent amid an atmosphere of paranoia, suspicion and murder” (Kean. 2009. 26). In 31AD, Tiberius summoned him to Capri. Since Caligula had been considered too young to be implicated in the treasonous affairs of his mother, he retained the affections of the emperor. On Capri, Suetonius states that allies of Sejanus tried to make the teen reveal his unsavoury feelings towards Tiberius but that he responded with indifference, stating “While he remained on that island, many insidious artifices were practised to extort from him complaints about Tiberius, but to his circumspection he avoided falling into the snare. He affected to take no notice of the ill-treatment of his relations, than if nothing had befallen them” (Suetonius cited by Forrester) Barrett corroborates this, commending the youth when he states, “Caligula’s first instinct…would have been to survive, and this would have required him to suppress any possible sense of moral responsibility, and have encouraged him to subordinate all other considerations to his own protection. He needed to constantly be on his guard, and the sources portray him as someone skilled at concealing his true feelings.” (Barrett. 1989. 30). Tiberius was suspicious of Caligula, but was fond of the youth to the extent of naming him heir with Gemellus. Upon Tiberius’ death, despite rumour of his involvement in it, Caligula was pronounced sole emperor by the senate, the army and the people who considered him preferable to Gemellus.
Within a few months of his reign he suffered what is referred to as his ‘breakdown’ or ‘illness’ of which the diagnosis remains unknown. Despite much speculation (Ferrill. 1991, Katz. 1973,Mackay. 2004) as to what the ailment was and because the ancient world had no understanding of mental illness, it is difficult to draw conclusions as to what the emperor suffered from which led to his infamously tyrannical ‘insanity’. There is, however, an orthodox opinion among historians that the events Caligula experienced throughout his childhood and developmental years worsened his mental state and amplified any possible genetic disorder he suffered. This is argued by Ferrill, who states “whether his experiences from the time of his father's death to the moment of his accession, might in themselves have caused him mental instability, and the answer is obviously yes” (Ferrill. 1991. 100). Robert Katz, Professor of medicine hypothesises that Caligula had hyperthyroidism, and corroborates the idea that this illness was sparked by a mentally shocking experience such as what he experienced prior to, and in Capri. (Katz. 1973. online). It is realistic to assume that Caligula’s childhood had an underlying influence on his mental state and later had a detrimental effect on his imperial leadership.
The influence of Macro on Caligula
An influence in Caligula’s early political life, that when removed led to Caligula's 'failure' was the praetorian prefect Macro. In 31BC, Sejanus fell out of favour with Tiberius, and was arrested for conspiring against him. His replacement, Macro, took an interest in Caligula and was intent on him becoming sole emperor. Attempts to dissuade Tiberius from choosing Gemellus resulted in both being named heirs, and Macro secured his relationship with Caligula by allowing him to have an affair with his wife. Through the efforts of Macro, upon Tiberius’s death Caligula was pronounced sole princeps by the senate, the army and the Roman people who considered him more favourably because he was descended from the Julian line. Macro’s involvement in Caligula’s ascendancy was criticised by contemporaries to the event, such as Senator Arruntius. Barrett states that “while Arruntius realised the certainty of Caligula’s succession he was also conscious that the pretender was barely more than a boy ‘ignarum omnium aug pessimism inutritum’ and would be under the control of Macro, who was even more brutal than his predecessor Sejanus. If absolute power had corrupted Tiberius with his vast experience, what chance was there for the inexperienced Caligula under the tutelage of Macro?” (Barrett. 1989. 40). This criticism of Macro can be ascribed to the senatorial bias of Arruntius. Jay Key accounts for this and also explains the importance of Macro, stating "this might also have to do with the Senate's belief that they could manipulate the immature leader that represented a desired older nobility in his lineage. However, this never came to fruition because of his cunning displays of political ability and Macro's ever- present guidance." (Key. n.d. online). It is apparent that Macro was highly influential in Caligula’s rule, something that Caligula eventually began to resent, deeming him inferior. Contemporary to the events, Philo, explains that in 38AD Macro offered advice on governmental issues and incited a vicious response in the emperor, who is supposed to have said
“Here comes the teacher of one who no longer needs to learn, the tutor of one who is no longer in tutelage, the censor of his superior in wisdom who holds that an emperor should obey his subjects,who rates himself versed in the art of government and an instructor therein, though in what school he has learnt its principles I do not know” (Ferrill. 1991. 103)
Macro later committed suicide in response to losing favour with the emperor who had accused him of pimping his own wife. The man so influential in Caligula’s accession could no longer assert his influence over Caligula. The involvement of Macro in Caligula’s initial accession as Emperor is deemed very important in understanding, why at least initially, the emperor's reign was not seen as a failure.
An influence in Caligula’s early political life, that when removed led to Caligula's 'failure' was the praetorian prefect Macro. In 31BC, Sejanus fell out of favour with Tiberius, and was arrested for conspiring against him. His replacement, Macro, took an interest in Caligula and was intent on him becoming sole emperor. Attempts to dissuade Tiberius from choosing Gemellus resulted in both being named heirs, and Macro secured his relationship with Caligula by allowing him to have an affair with his wife. Through the efforts of Macro, upon Tiberius’s death Caligula was pronounced sole princeps by the senate, the army and the Roman people who considered him more favourably because he was descended from the Julian line. Macro’s involvement in Caligula’s ascendancy was criticised by contemporaries to the event, such as Senator Arruntius. Barrett states that “while Arruntius realised the certainty of Caligula’s succession he was also conscious that the pretender was barely more than a boy ‘ignarum omnium aug pessimism inutritum’ and would be under the control of Macro, who was even more brutal than his predecessor Sejanus. If absolute power had corrupted Tiberius with his vast experience, what chance was there for the inexperienced Caligula under the tutelage of Macro?” (Barrett. 1989. 40). This criticism of Macro can be ascribed to the senatorial bias of Arruntius. Jay Key accounts for this and also explains the importance of Macro, stating "this might also have to do with the Senate's belief that they could manipulate the immature leader that represented a desired older nobility in his lineage. However, this never came to fruition because of his cunning displays of political ability and Macro's ever- present guidance." (Key. n.d. online). It is apparent that Macro was highly influential in Caligula’s rule, something that Caligula eventually began to resent, deeming him inferior. Contemporary to the events, Philo, explains that in 38AD Macro offered advice on governmental issues and incited a vicious response in the emperor, who is supposed to have said
“Here comes the teacher of one who no longer needs to learn, the tutor of one who is no longer in tutelage, the censor of his superior in wisdom who holds that an emperor should obey his subjects,who rates himself versed in the art of government and an instructor therein, though in what school he has learnt its principles I do not know” (Ferrill. 1991. 103)
Macro later committed suicide in response to losing favour with the emperor who had accused him of pimping his own wife. The man so influential in Caligula’s accession could no longer assert his influence over Caligula. The involvement of Macro in Caligula’s initial accession as Emperor is deemed very important in understanding, why at least initially, the emperor's reign was not seen as a failure.