Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T11:19:25.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. The Tradition About Caligula

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2011

M. P. Charlesworth
M. P. Charlesworth
Affiliation:
Reader in Ancient History in the University of Cambridge
Get access

Extract

On the death of Tiberius, Gaius Caesar, the son of the popular Germanicus, and often known in history by his nickname of Caligula, was acclaimed by the Senate as ruler of the Roman Empire, amid scenes of universal rejoicing, on 18 March in the year 37. On 24 January in the year 41 he lay dead, a tyrant murdered by Cassius Chaerea and his confederates, while the consuls convened a meeting of the Senate, not in the Curia Julia, for the name had now such hateful associations, but on the Capitol, to discuss the restoration of the Republic. In the space of a little less than four years the young man—he was under twenty-five when he became Emperor—had so alienated men's minds from the system of Augustus that Senators were ready to consider the abolition of the Principate and the condemnation of the memory of the Caesars. Ignominy and ridicule have fastened upon his name ever since: the common view held was (put briefly) that Gaius was mad and bad, and went from bad to worse. The nineteenth century witnessed the activity of scholars who questioned the traditional account of all the Julio-Claudian emperors, by using the new knowledge offered by inscriptions or by analysing and criticising closely the account in the literary authorities.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Historical Journal , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , 1933 , pp. 105 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The main ancient authorities are: Philo, Legatio; Josephus, Ant[iquitates judaicae], (Naber's edition), XVIII, 147—xix, 273; Suet[onius], Calig[ula]; and Dio [Cassius], (Boissevain's edition), LIX.

Modern works of importance include:

Willrich, H.. “Caligula.” Klio, III, 1903, 85, 288, 397.Google Scholar

M. Gelzer. “Iulius” (Caligula), No. 133, in Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, x, col. 381 sqq.

Rosborough, Ruskin R.. An Epigraphic Commentary on Suetonius’ Life of Gaius Caligula. Philadelphia, Penn., U.S.A. 1920.Google Scholar

Jerome, T. S.. “The Historical Tradition about Gaius,” chapter xviii of Aspects of the Study of Roman History, London and New York, 1923.Google Scholar

Sachs, H.. “Bubi Caligula.” Edit. 2, Vienna, 1932.Google Scholar

Momigliano, A.. “La Personalità di Caligola,” in Annali della Regia Scuola Norm. Sup. di Pisa, Ser. ii, I, 1932, 1.Google Scholar

Eitrem, S.. Zur Apotheose. Symbolae, Osloenses, x, 1932, 49Google Scholar (iii, Caligula); xi, 1932, 11 (iv, Die heilige Ehe), 22 (v, Das Herrscherblut und die domus Augusta).

2 The Arval Acta are to be found in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, vi, i, 1876, 459 sqq., and the Ostian Fasti in xiv, Suppl., 1930, 653 sqq.

3 Suet. Calig. 15; Josephus, Ant. xviii, 236, agrees.

4 Suet. Calig. 15, 2; 29, 1; 23, 2.

5 Suet. Calig. 14, 2; 15.

6 Suet. Calig. 35, 1; Dio, lx, 5, 9; Seneca, Apocolocyntosis, 11, 2.

7 Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 9339.

8 F. B. Marsh, The Reign of Tiberius, Appendix iii (Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio), especially pp. 275–6.

9 Plutarch, Lucullus, 21; Ammianus Marcellinus, xiv, ii, 10.

10 Seneca, de ira, iii, 19. According to Dio, lix, 10, 4, Gaius put to death a Roman knight who had formerly insulted his mother Agrippina, and then shut his unoffending father in a cage, “like many others,” and let him die there.

11 All this will be found in Seneca, de ira, iii, 18–19.

12 Seneca, de tranquillitate, 14; Plutarch, Moralia, vii, frag. 140.

13 Seneca, de beneficiis, vii, 10, 11. The sayings and doings of Demetrius, Thrasea Paetus, Helvidius Priscus and others must have held a large place in the anti-Caesarian pamphlets of the later first century.

14 Dio, lix, 14, 7; Suet. Calig. 55, 3.

15 Suet. Calig. 55, 2; Dio, lix, 14, 5. For the case of poisons see Suet. Calig. 49, 3; a possible hint of it occurs earlier in Philo, Legatio, 107.

16 Xiphilinus, 172, 22–26. Cf. the excerpts from Zonaras and Peter the Patrician set out on page 660 of vol. ii of Boissevain's edition of Dio. The reference is to the famous “utinam populus Romanus unam cervicem haberet” of Suet. Calig. 30, 2.

17 Josephus, Ant. xix, 106–7; Suet. Calig. 30, 1.

18 Suet. Calig. 19 and 32, 1; Josephus, Ant. xix, 5, 6; Seneca, de brevitate vitae, 18, 5–6. Lugand, R., in a short note called “Suétone et Caligula” published in Revue des Études anciennes, xxxii, 1930Google Scholar, by taking the Dionian and Suetonian accounts at their full face value (including the statement that Gaius had with him a Parthian hostage, Darius), and by adding inferences from the treatment of Incitatus, produces the following striking result: “les Parthes, fidèles Mazdéens, immolaient des chevaux au Soleil, dont le quadrige, chaque jour, traverse le ciel. Sur le pont de Pouzzoles à Baïes, Caligula s'identifiait au Soleil: n'allait-il pas, par ailleurs, jusqu'à inviter la Lune à partager son lit? (Suétone, Caligula, 22). Dieu pendant sa vie, Caligula se croyait destiné à l'apothéose; après sa mort, il accompagnerait dans sa course le Soleil immortel; la cavalcade de Baïes n'était qu'une anticipation.”

19 Suet. Calig. 45–47, 51, 2; Xiphilinus, 166, 30–167, 10. On the German expedition see, besides T. S. Jerome, Aspects, 415, A. Riese in Neue Heidelb. Jahrb. 1896, 152, Dalmasso, L. in Riv. Stor. Ant., 1907, 470Google Scholar, and Janssen, J. in Mnemosyne, 1920, 205.Google Scholar

20 Tacitus, Agricola, 39; Xiphilinus, 218, 22.

21 Similarly the tale of how Petronius, the governor of Syria, tried to prevent Gaius setting up his statue in the Temple and how he was saved from death by Gaius’ murder, again shows the power of God, who defends His helpers: see Ant. xviii, 306–9.

22 Th. Mommsen, “Cornelius Tacitus und Cluvius Rufus,” Gesammelte Schriften, vii, 224–252; Momigliano, A., “Osservazioni [sulle Fonte per la Storia di Caligola, Claudio Nerone],” Rendiconti dell’ Accademia dei Lincei, viii, 1932, 293–336.Google Scholar

23 Gercke, A., “Seneca-Studien” in Jahrbuch für Philologie, Suppl. Band, xxii, 1896, esp. pages 256Google Scholar sqq. It is worth noticing that the same metaphorical language occurs here in mention of Nero: Wars, iii, 2, κατασοβαρεὐεσθαι τῶν σκυθρωπῶν; II, 251, φρενοβλαβείας ἐξὡκειλεν εὶς σκηνὴν καἰ θἑατρον

24 This is one of the few points where I disagree with A. Momigliano, Osservazioni: he holds that Cluvius is the common source for the sensational parts both of Suetonius and Dio; the preceding pages will have shown why I regard that as unlikely.

25 Another example of this, but belonging to the reign of Tiberius, can be seen by comparing Dio, lviii, ii, 5–7 with the Ostian Fasti for A.D. 31; see the notes of the editor, L. Wickert, ad loc.

26 ‘Yet Josephus’ account (Ant. xix, 36) of his pity for the tortured Quintilia suggests reservation even here.