August 11, 2003
From the desk of Jane Galt:The politics of personal destruction
We've all listened to the same angry debate a hundred times. Friends and loved ones practically coming to blows as they argued: was he really a power-mad lunatic, or a visionary being smeared by political enemies? Now, however, we finally have some evidence that will allow us to put the question to rest.
Caligula: raving nutter and megalomaniac after all.
Posted by Jane Galt at August 11, 2003 3:21 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksWas tehe ever any question about this?
I thought Tacitus & Suetonius were pretty clear on the issue.
And 'I Claudius' long ago removed any doubt in my mind.
Well, the Reuters article says the archaeology confirms that he used the temple of Castor & Pollux as a vestibule to his palace.
Suetonius states that as well, so there's now confirmation that he got at least one thing right. I'm inclined to think he got most of it right.
It's fascinating that the article described Caligula as "eccentric". Must be some kind of "multiculturalist relativity" in journalism these days. With "eccentrics" like Caligula, what is a stark raving loon?
Speaking as a small classicist who until recently worked primarily on the Roman Emperor cult (and subfields have their subfields, etc.), the proof that he employed the temple to the Dioscuri as an antechamber to his own temple is not, strictly speaking, proof that he was insane.
Most of his political actions, this certainly included, make perfect Machiavellian sense if you believe he was constantly expanding the boundaries covered by his arbitrary rule. Even his personal cult was hardly as controversial or unprecedented as it appears in that article or from the purely senatorial viewpoint of Suetonius or Tacitus - see, for example, the recent and excellent work of Ittai Gradel. That said, even allowing for the smearing of one of Rome's most inventive emperors by the senatorial class whose privileges he attempted to annihilate, he probably WAS a raving nutter.
I believe we should all put aside our partisan differences and agree to wholeheartedly condemn this monster. He has no place in a modern society.
“I believe we should all put aside our partisan differences and agree to wholeheartedly condemn this monster. He has no place in a modern society.”
Caligula has just as much right as anyone else to run for governor of California. Hey, he couldn’t be any worse than Grey Davis!
Yet another example why scholarship in ever-smaller sub-fields of research is counterproductive to the search for truth. Inevitably the only 'new' (and hence publishable) thesis is to construct theories that oppose conventional wisdom.
Everyone knows that Caligula was a moonbat wacko, so scholars need to hypothesize that he might have been sane to get published as 'fresh' or 'insightful'.
I have a feeling that evidence cited in the article will still need to stretch a bit to justify impressions revealed by the, er, documentary on the Roman Emperor with Malcolm McDowell.
David Thomson wrote:
"Caligula has just as much right as anyone else to run for governor of California. Hey, he couldn’t be any worse than Grey Davis!"
Top ten reasons Caligula should be governor of California, well here's a start:
10. Sacramento would upstage San Francisco for parties and parades.
9. No need to worry about recall elections ever again.
8. He'd appoint entire horses to offices, instead of just their posteriors.
7. No problem widening the Bay Bridge -- just confiscate some ships, line 'em up, and pave 'em over.
6. He'd build neat cruise ships to sail around the SF Bay.
5. Latin would be taught in schools again.
...
5. Latin would be taught in schools again.
And it would be learned, since you'd need it to fill out an application for a driver's license.
Comments are Closed.