Caligula was an insane Roman emperor. Well, hold on a minute, maybe not. Aloys Winterling wrote Caligula: A Biography to examine that dispute even though it is an obscure one at best. For the most part, he proves his point that Caligula was perfectly sane, but the question I have as a reader is why did he see a need to make this argument in the first place?
At the start, Winterling outlines his thesis and the criteria he uses as a metric for evaluation. Caligula’s eccentricities were misunderstood or taken out of context. Nobody could have obeyed his orders if he were insane. No Roman physicians ever diagnosed him as being insane. The accusation of mental illness was meant as an insult as opposed to a clinical psychiatric condition. Some of these criteria are problematic, to say the least, almost so inept that you might wonder how a professor of history could not see his own blunders in his evaluation. But I will come back to that later.
At the time, Caligula was the youngest emperor to have ever led the Roman Empire. He was an upstart, full of youthful vigor, and ready to change the Roman government in ways that were not to the liking of the senate or the aristocracy. After being ruled by the three Caesars, the senate was growing increasingly more weak while the emperors were growing increasingly more powerful. Caligula wished to continue this trend and eventually return Rome to a monarchy. A showdown was inevitable, and a conspiracy to murder the young and naive leader was hatched. Caligula was alerted to the danger and had the rebellion put down immediately. After that he went on a campaign to humiliate and further weaken the senate. Wacky hijinks ensued. The emperor pulled a handful of pranks and practical jokes to make it clear to the senate and the plebs what he really thought of the aristocracy. The oddest incident was when he appointed his favorite race horse consul and proceeded to treat him as such. This, and other stunts, infuriated the senate and caused them to complain of his insanity. Otherwise, Caligula was an unremarkable emperor; the rest of his life involved political squabbles, excessive spending, and watching chariot races and gladiatorial combat for fun. He was assassinated shortly after being crowned emperor without having lived long enough to accomplish much.
That’s all folks.
Winterling states his argument and defends it, but that doesn’t say a whole lot. To say it was impossible for Caligula to be insane because others were willing to follow him is a weak idea. Hitler and Stalin were obviously mentally ill, yet they were able to lead their nations down the path to disaster. Donald Trump was president of America for four years while psychiatrists warned us that he has clear signs of a narcissistic personality disorder. There has been no shortage of religious leaders who were certainly crazy yet they still had their followings. Joan of Arc was schizophrenic. Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer’s disease. Case closed.
No physician in the Roman Empire ever diagnosed Caligula as insane is not such a sound criteria either. Firstly, just because such a diagnosis is not in the surviving written record, that does not mean nobody ever though it was true. Secondly, the Roman Empire was a pre-scientific society so the chances of doctors in that time having accurate knowledge of psychiatric disorders is pretty slim. Besides, Winterling himself does not provide us with any reason to think that he knows anything about psychiatry either.
Winterling’s argument that Caligula’s insanity was an insult rather than a diagnosis is a sound idea, but so what? It makes perfect sense in its context and, assuming that the most important details of Caligula’s life are known about, it isn’t a profound conclusion to arrive at. In fact, if Winterling had written this as a straight biography without outlining his thesis or even analyzing the evidence, I would see nothing in it to make me think Caligula was insane anyways. On the other hand, I take it for granted that people in positions of political power tend to be psychologically disordered to begin with. A sane person wouldn’t want to be an emperor, a dictator, or a president in the first place. I don’t think a sane person would want to be a psychologist either.
Caligula: A Biography is a so-so book. It is written at about a junior high school level of complexity so if you are used to reading more complicated books it is a bit plain. But Aloys Winterling accomplishes what he sets out to do, even if he is going for a low-hanging fruit. Caligula was moderately interesting, but he didn’t live long enough to be a fascinating historical figure. I was actually hoping for more sex and violence in this biography but admittedly, historical accuracy is more important. If you came to this book expecting something like the hilariously dreadful exploitation film directed by Tinto Brass in the 1970s, you probably will be disappointed. But then again, that might be a good thing anyways.
Winterling, Aloys. Caligula: A Biography, translated by Deborah Lucas Schneider, Glenn W. Most, and Paul Psoinos. University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment