THE BRILLIANT INSANITY OF GAIUS CALIGULA

Kellen TiborHistory 101-01: World Civilizations I

October 11, 2013

1

Table of ContentsIntroduction...............................................................................................2Gaius’s Traumatic Upbringing.................................................................3Gaius’s Quest for Absolute Power............................................................7The Assassination of Gaius.....................................................................15Conclusion..............................................................................................17Bibliography...........................................................................................19Figure 1 and Figure 2..............................................................................20

2

Introduction

History is written by the victors.1 These wise words of Sir Winston Churchill ring just as

true today as they did during the time of the Second World War, and they rang just as true 2000

years ago in Ancient Rome. Just as Spanish and Greek biases shaped the understanding of

history for their respective events, so too have biases in recording events shaped our

understanding of nearly every major change of power throughout world history; we now

understand that Columbus was not the first to discover America, nor are there enough Persian

sources to judge a definitive moral high ground for the belligerents of the Greco-Persian War.

The fallout from the assassination of Roman emperor Gaius Caligula in AD 41 is no exception to

this rule. When the perception of the ruler of the most powerful empire of the world undergoes

such a drastic change in four years to the point that he is assassinated, a question must be asked:

“What actually caused the Praetorian Guard to assassinate Gaius Caligula?” Because all

surviving contemporary accounts ambiguously described Gaius as “insane,” history has long

held that he was literally insane, giving little thought to other motivations for his actions.

However, a careful examination of Gaius Caligula’s reign would show a political mastermind

with an incredible thirst for power that inevitably caused his own death. This paper argues that

Gaius Caligula was not assassinated because of his alleged insanity, but because his traumatic

upbringing gave him a lust for power that led him to elevate himself to the status of a living god,

and the steps he took to accomplish his ambition incurred the wrath of the Senate and Praetorian

Guard.

1 Good Reads. “Winston Churchill Quotes,” Accessed October 16, 2013 http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/ 97949- history-is-written-by-the-victors.

3

Gaius’s Traumatic Upbringing

As has happened all too often throughout history, Gaius suffered during his youth

because of the reputation of his father. Gaius’s father, Germanicus, was a prominent member of

the family that would substantiate the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Germanicus was a prominent

general in Germany, and Gaius would regularly accompany his father whenever possible,

dressed in the dress of a small soldier. From this, Gaius was given the nickname “Caligula,”

meaning “little boot” by the soldiers. Although Tiberius gave him pro-consular powers, it soon

became clear that Germanicus was a threat to his power. After an unprecedented stream of

military victories in Germany, as well as the knowledge that Germanicus’s legions once desired

to make Germanicus emperor, Tiberius had him reassigned to the East. After even more

victories, Tiberius grew weary of the influence Germanicus could wield. Although never proven,

sources such as Tacitus believe he was then killed by Piso, under orders from Tiberius, to

remove that threat to his power.2

After his father’s death in AD 19, he would have expected to have seen some form of

grief from his uncle, Tiberius. However, Tiberius reacted with indifference rather than

mourning,a private rather than a state funeral, and none of the imperial family was allowed to

make a public appearance.3 Gaius then found himself moving from the care of his mother, great-

grandmother, and grandmother in succession as each was banished or murdered in Tiberius’s

attempt to destroy the bloodline of Germanicus. During this period, Gaius also endured the

imprisonment and presumable deaths of his brothers Drusus and Nero. Finally, in AD 31 he and

his sisters were taken into the island of Caprae by Tiberius, where they stayed until the

emperor’s death.4 During this ten-year period, Gaius saw six of his closest family removed from

2 Cornelius Tacitus, The Complete Works of Tacitus. (New York: Random House, 1942), 22, 92-94.3 Philip Matyszak, The Sons of Caesar: Imperial Rome’s First Dynasty. (London: Thames & Hudson, 2006), 164.4 Suetonius, Suetonius I. (London: Harvard University Press, 1951), 369, 417.

4

his life, usually in violent fashion. Although the Roman people would have seen this as

something like a soap opera, this traumatic series of events were very real for Gaius, and he was

about to go through yet another traumatic experience in the emperor’s court.

Already emotionally and mentally fragile from the systematic killing of his family, he

was then forced to live under the care of the very man who ordered those killings. To accompany

the emotional anguish that was caused by that circumstance, he was constantly locked in a

mental game by the members of the court. Gaius would have to watch every word that he said,

for people were always looking to trap him in some form of complaint or curse. Remarkably,

Gaius remained vigilant, and always acted as if the traumatic events that brought him to Caprae

had never happened, with complete disregard for his hatred of Tiberius.5 It was not for Gaius’s

benefit that he had every carnal pleasure available. Although Suetonius writes that “Even at that

time he could not control his natural cruelty and viciousness, but he was a most eager witness of

the tortures and executions of those who suffered punishment,”6 it would stand to reason that he

reveled in the debonair nihilism of imperial living for the same reason that many Americans do

today – he saw no other purpose in life. Everything he held dear was destroyed, and he was

living in constant mental anguish. Without any sort of hope in a higher power or any form of

moral code, carnal pleasure was likely the only real feeling that he could experience. In the

imperial court, there were plenty of vices to fill that void; gluttony, adultery, and violence were

commonplace.7 During this time, he took Junia Claudia to be his wife, who would likely have

served to help Gaius’s fragile mental and emotional state. Unfortunately, she died in childbirth,

yet another traumatic event which only hampered Gaius’s outlook on life.

5 Ibid., 417.6 Ibid., 419.7 Ibid.

5

By this time, it was becoming obvious that the emperor was growing old, and was near

the end of his life. Surrounded by the imperial court, Gaius surely learned the intricacies of

Roman politics, and he learned first-hand from the emperor what must be done to rule such a

vast empire. Gaius’s ability to act brought another benefit in that Gaius found himself promoted

to the office of pontiff and then augur on account of his “good character.” Tiberius’s only heir to

the throne, Gemellus, was too young to be made emperor. Because Tiberius made Gaius his

adopted grandson in taking him in to Caprae, Gaius would likely end up with the majority of a

joint imperial rule upon the death of the emperor, and this fact was well-understood by Gaius.

Violence and adultery now a normal part of his life, Gaius seduced the wife of Naevius Sutorius

Macro, Prefect of the Praetorian Guard, who had no objections to having a close tie to a possible

future emperor.8 By AD 37, Gemellus was beginning to come of age, and Tiberius was not yet

dead. Knowing that Gemellus would be named sole emperor if Tiberius would live to see it done,

and himself disposed of,9 Gaius likely used his influence with Macro to have the emperor

poisoned or smothered.10 With a 2000 sesterce bounty to ensure the support of the Praetorian

Guard,11 Gaius was installed as sole emperor, with Gemellus existing in a position of

mentorship.12

At the death of Tiberius, Gaius was twenty-five years old, hardened of heart, and exposed

to every carnal pleasure Rome could offer. A distinction must now be made between

desensitization to violence and insanity. We have seen how Gaius grew up in a thoroughly

traumatic environment, and that his exposure to constant violence and the death of everyone

close to him destroyed any sense of morality that he may have had. It is absolutely fair to say that

8 Ibid., 4219 Philo, The Works of Philo. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), 759.10 Suetonius 421.11 Matyszak 169-170.12 Philo, 759.

6

Gaius was completely desensitized to violence, and lacked a moral code to prevent him from

committing similar acts of violence during his reign. Therefore, there must be significant proof

of a dramatic change in his behavior directly related to his life before his experience on Caprae;

there must be a psychological or physiological explanation that accounts for his behavior that

occurs after this time. Only Suetonius gives cause for a possibility of epilepsy, which he termed

“falling sickness” when Gaius was young. The only other possible recorded cause of insanity is

his further claim that his wife gave him a drug intended to be a love potion that drove him mad.13

However, these accounts come after a very negative description of Gaius’s physical appearance,

showing the bias that is prevalent throughout Suetonius’s account. No other record – Tacitus,

Seneca, Philo, Josephus, or Cassius Dio – gives any cause for symptoms of disease that would

label Gaius as mentally insane during Gaius’s childhood. Furthermore, Suetonius also writes that

Julius Caesar suffered from “falling sickness” twice during his campaigns. Evidently, epileptic

seizures were sometimes feigned for political reasons.14 These factors further decrease the

reliability of Seutonius’s claim of epilepsy.

Even if Suetonius was not embellishing on this point, and Gaius truly had epilepsy, a

study conducted by the Taipei Medical University in Taiwan in April of 2013 found that of the

94.1% of subjects who developed psychiatric disorders after epilepsy – an admittedly high

number – the greatest risk of the onset of those disorders was in the first year following

diagnosis, which then progressively decreased to non-significance after four years.15 Again, no

account shows any symptom of a neurotic or psychotic disorder within that period, which

according to Suetonius would have been as a boy.16 Even if we continue to theoretically state that

13 Suetonius, 481.14 Ibid,., 62-63.15 Hsiu-Ju Chang, et al. “Psychiatric Disorders after Epilepsy Diagnosis: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.” PLOS One, April 2013, 3.16 Suetonius, 481.

7

Gaius had epilepsy, the study found that he would have had a 44.7% risk for developing a

neurotic disorder, with the risks for dementia and schizophrenia being 10.3% and 2.53%

respectively.17 Thus, if Suetonius’s claim is correct, then the greatest possible risk to Gaius’s

mental health were general neurotic disorders, not the general claim of psychosis promulgated by

Suetonius and others.

Gaius’s Quest for Absolute Power

When Gaius took the imperial throne in AD 37, he controlled an empire that stretched

from present-day Spain to Mesopotamia (see Figure 1).18 The absolute control of so much is

enough to break the moral will of many men. Now enter Gaius, a man desensitized to violence

and with no moral code to hinder him. That combination of a lack of empathy and debonair

nihilism would scare any concerned citizen, but Gaius was even more dangerous because he had

lived in Tiberius’s court for six years, and understood Roman politics; Gaius had the opportunity

to bring the imperial court of Caprae to all of Rome. He immediately set about accomplishing

that opportunity. Gaius understood that the first prerequisite to ruling any state is the support of

the people, which he was fortunate enough to have this from the second he took the throne.

Romans loved Germanicus, and had great pity for his only surviving son. They were ecstatic to

see him elevated to emperor, and gave him names such as “star, chick, babe, and nursling”

before the period of mourning for Tiberius had even finished.19 With the support of the people

securely in his hand, he had only to deal with the legal issue of formally receiving titles from the

Senate. At this point, the office of emperor did not technically exist, so Gaius’s only right to rule

was the Praetorian-modified will of Tiberius. Gaius flattered the senators with the same acting

17 Chang, 4.18 The University of Texas at Austin. “Map of the Roman Empire from Tiberius (14-37 AD) - Trajan (98 - 117 AD)," Accessed October 3, 2013. http://www.laits.utexas.edu/moore/rome/image/map-roman-empire-tiberius-14-37-ad-trajan-98-117-ad.19 Suetonius, 421.

8

skill that served him on Caprae, and the Senate gave him the titles of tribunica potestas, maius

imperium, Pontifex Maximus, and Pater Patrie – honors that Octavian and Tiberius slowly

accumulated over their reigns.20 The only political barrier that remained was that of filial loyalty,

which he immediately took care of so as not to create enemies in what remained of his extended

family. He personally reinterred Nero’s remains in an honorable manner, and had Claudius

elevated to the senate and a shared consulship. Finally, to show enduring secret loyalty to his

family, he claimed that he nearly killed Tiberius in his sleep, and that pity for the old man caused

him to spare the emperor’s life, a claim that may have been true.21

To further advance the people’s perception of him, he went to work instituting programs

for the people. Suetonius describes many of the things Gaius did:

With the same degree of popularity he recalled those who had been condemned to banishment; took no cognizance of any charges that remained untried from an earlier time... He refused a note which was offered him regarding his own safety, maintaining that he had done nothing to make anyone hate him, and that he had no ears for informers.He banished from the city sexual perverts called spintriae, barely persuaded not to sink them in the sea. The writings of Titus Labenius, Cremitius Cordus, and Cassius Severus, which had been suppressed by decrees of the senate, he allowed to be hunted up, circulated, and read, saying that it was wholly to his interest that everything which happened be handed down to prosperity.22

This is but a fraction of the things Gaius did immediately upon taking office. He even went so far

as to attempt to reinstate elections.23 He also created new public works, as well as finishing

projects left over from Tiberius’s reign, such as the temple of Augustus and the theater of

Pompey. 24

Just a six to eight months after his ascension to the throne, Gaius fell incredibly ill. It is

unknown what beset the emperor, but it very nearly put him on his deathbed.25 Much to the joy

20 Matyszak, 169-170.21 Ibid., 171.22 Suetonius, 425-427.23 Ibid., 427.24 Ibid., 433-435.25 Matyszak, 174.

9

of the Roman people, he made a full recovery. For years, this has been considered the “turning

point” of Caligula’s reign; it is soon after this event that Suetonius writes “So much for Caligula

as emperor; we must now tell of his career as a monster.”26 After his recovery, Gaius put to death

Gemellus,27 and in so doing started a de facto policy in which anybody who could possibly pose

a threat to his power would be killed. These events seem to be a stark contrast with the pre-

illness Gaius, but there is only one difference between the two: the realization of mortality.

Whether he recognized it or not, Gaius was extremely fortunate to be alive before he even

contracted his disease. His family was murdered and he lived with the person who ordered their

deaths, but he somehow managed to find himself emperor. He was loved by the people, and he

did nothing to deserve it. Philip Matyszak is not exaggerating when he says, “Far more than

Octavian, he merited the taunt of his ancestor Mark Antony, ‘You, boy, owe everything to a

name.’”28 If Gaius had an invincibility complex, it was certainly merited. But this brush with

death made Gaius realize just how close death was to him, and it changed the way he went about

business. After examining the deeds he was capable of doing to gain the imperial throne, namely:

the surely-present desire to murder the emperor; buying of favors; and those acts’ execution with

a cold lack of empathy, Gaius’s post-illness actions can be found to vary little from His actions

prior to the illness. Again, this distinction is extremely important, because it shows that there is

not a change in personality after the illness; Gaius is the same person, but he now knows that he

can die. The greatest implication of this fact is that having tasted all the power that this world can

give, he now finds that they will not sustain him. Logically, the only thing that could offer him

more pleasure and power is outside of this world – in the realm of the gods.

26 Suetonius, 43527 Philo, 759.28 Matyszak, 169

10

The effects of this mindset will be seen for the rest of Gaius’s life. One work that draws

interest from Gaius’s early reign is that of a bridge he constructed between Baiae and Puteoli,

which spanned over three and a half Roman miles. After building this bridge, Suetonius writes:

Over this bridge he rode back and forth for two successive days, the first day on a caparisoned horse, himself resplendent in a crown of oak leaves, a buckler, a sword, and a sack of cloth of gold; on the second, in the dress of a charioteer in a car drawn by a pair of famous horses, carrying before him a boy named Dareus, one of the hostages from Parthia, and attended by the entire Praetorian Guard and a company of his friends in Gallic chariots.29

This event, although seemingly trivial, is actually very important to understanding the

motivations for the rest of Caligula’s reign. Suetonius gives three possible motivations for this

event: the first is that Gaius wished to rival a bridge created by Xerxes, who created a much

smaller bridge at Hellespoint; the second is that it was meant to inspire fear in Germany and

Britain; the third is that an astrologer once told Tiberius, who was trying to decide who would be

his heir, that Gaius “had no more chance of becoming emperor than riding about over the Gulf of

Baiae with horses.”30

When examining the events of Gaius’s later reign, especially those deemed to be

nonsensical, similar motivations to these will be found underneath the surface. The first of

Suetonius’s list of possible motivations is that of power. As already examined, Gaius was

twenty-five years old, had no moral compass, and most of the known world under his control. He

also knew that he only had a limited amount of time on this earth. How then was he to gain as

much power as quickly as possible? In one sense, outperforming the deeds of previous great

people is an impressive way to show power. After Gaius saw his mortality through his illness,

however, he found that the greatest way to obtain power would be to make himself a living god.

This will become more prevalent in his future acts. The second motivation is that of military

29 Suetonius, 431-433.30 Ibid., 433.

11

conquest, specifically in Germania and Britannia. One extremely significant aspect of Roman

culture, and specifically for the emperor, was his association with the army and Rome’s military

traditions.31 Support of Rome’s military would prove vital for any successful emperor, as the

army would prove instrumental in choosing future emperors, as well as ensuring that the people

were safe from northern invasions. Again, that principle of the support of the people shows here;

if the people are not safe, they do not support the emperor. The army was instrumental in

keeping people safe, so the army could theoretically cause a change in leadership by not doing

their job. To prevent this, emperors would usually try to engage in a successful military conquest

to gain the legionaries’ support; for Gaius, Germania and Britannia. Finally, the third point

related to the fact the Gaius would come to love humiliating his opponents. Although the source

cannot be confirmed, it would fit Gaius’s character to put into reality a seemingly impossible

task, such as crossing a sea on a horse, just because someone spoke ill of him.

Gaius set about killing any and all political opponents in what can only be called a reign

of terror. First, Gemellus was killed to ensure that there was no challenge to his legitimacy as a

ruler. Macro was killed soon thereafter, simply because Gaius thought Macro had the potential to

create another emperor. In that love of humiliation, Gaius charged him with pandering, the act of

supplying his wife for sexual services with another. Now influenced by his fear of mortality, as

well as his consequently pertinent beliefs in the wrath of the gods, he ordered that all who

offered their lives in exchange for his recovery to fight in the arena. Although this may seem like

wanton killing, the idea of reneging on a promise to the gods was not a risk the mortality-

concerned emperor was willing to take. Gaius knew that he could die, and he certainly knew that

the gods could make that happen. Members of the senate were far from immune to these killings.

31 Mary T. Boatwright, et al. The Romans: from Village to Empire. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 318.

12

At least three senators were killed in AD 39 on charges of conspiracy or otherwise. Interestingly,

Lucius Vitellius, governor of Syria, who was loosely connected to one of the murdered senators,

was able to keep his life because he worshipped Gaius as a god during his pleas for his life.32

At this point, there was but one obstacle that Gaius needed to overcome before he could

begin his work toward immortality: the support of the Legions. As previously mentioned,

support of the Roman Army was extremely important, and military conquest was the primary

method of gaining that support. Gaius chose to focus on Britannia and Germania, unconquered

lands that the empire desired to take. Despite his understanding of politics, Gaius would soon

show to have very little military competence. In AD 39 he set out for Germania to eliminate

Governor of Germany Lentulus Gaetulicus, a close associate of one of the senators executed on

charges of conspiracy. It is unclear what happened when the two met, but Gaetulicus was killed

on charge of treason. Despite being the son of the distinguished Germanicus, Gaius was unable

to learn much from his father, and made the mistake of putting small political goals above goals

military goals that would have political implications. Regardless of the governor’s alleged

implications plot to murder Gaius, he failed to understand that killing the governor is not a way

to endear one’s troops. Nevertheless, he did precisely that, and sent Servius Sulpicius Galba to

command the Rhine army and set about planning for the invasions.33

Gaius’s lack of military savviness would immediately begin to show itself again. Galba

understood that a campaign in Germania would be pointless while building up a massive

invasion force for Britannia. Nevertheless, Galba followed the orders, and started training and

disciplining troops for the invasion – a difficult task, considering the fact that the two lands were

unconquered. Gaius, again showing his lack of military understanding, proceeded to shower the

32 Matyszak, 177-181.33 Ibid., 183-184.

13

troops with rewards, eroding the discipline that Galba had worked so hard to instill. When the

time came for the invasion of Britannia, a land believed to be unconquerable to many soldiers, it

is possible that the soldiers outright refused. The governor had been killed, Gaius’s strategy

made no sense, and he only served to break down the discipline of his men. 34 This posed quite a

problem for Gaius, who would have known that he needed their support in order to survive.

What was happening was mutiny, which carried the penalty of decimation – the forced killing of

every tenth man in the Legion by the other nine. Needless to say, Gaius could not afford another

blow to the morale of the army, but he still wanted to punish them. Yet again, he turned to

humiliation. He decided to make the most powerful army in the world form ranks against the

English Channel and attack the ocean. To further add to the humiliation, he had the soldiers take

back seashells; victory spoils.

Although his military campaigns struggled to produce anything, Gaius still desired to

remove the Senate so that there would be no other force stopping him from becoming a god.

Again, Gaius loved to deal in humiliation. He would constantly go about dressed as a god, and

commanded people to worship him – especially senators, if possible. Gaius grew increasingly

disdainful of the Senate, and he inevitably had to break down the history and tradition of the

Senate to eliminate the will of its members. 35 The feud became so hot that he proclaimed to all

the senators that he would make his horse, Incitatus, a consul.36 This was not because he honestly

believed that a horse could perform well at that position; rather, he wanted to show how little he

cared for a position for which the senators would literally kill. For a while, Gaius’s strategy of

humiliation worked: “The more (the Senate) was abused and humiliated, the more its members

fell over themselves to offer Gaius Caligula more and greater honors. Few Senators allowed even

34 Ibid., 184.35 Ibid., 186-187.36 Mary T. Boatwright, et al., 325.

14

a dignified interval before rushing to prostrate themselves before their god-emperor and kissing

his sandals.”37

Gaius’s desire to be revered as a god was meant to be known throughout the entirety of

the empire, even in monotheistic Israel. He ordered that a statue of himself deified as Jupiter to

be erected in the Temple in Jerusalem.38 Thankfully for the Jewish people, Gaius was killed and

the order rescinded before it could come to fruition. Gaius even went so far as to plan to move

the capital of the empire to Alexandria, a city forbidden for senators to enter.39 This would

accomplish two things: first, he would finally be completely free of the Senate; second, the

physically in their presence, they would likely instantly deify him.40

The Assassination of Gaius

Despite the political potency of Gaius, he still made mistakes; namely, making enemies

out of the Senate and Praetorian Guard. Indeed, in his quest to achieve ultimate power, he forgot

to keep a hold of the most basic power found in the people and established systems. Gaius’s

decision to forsake that wisdom as he planned to move to Alexandria was the final blow to the

pride of the Senate.41 Perhaps Gaius had grown so corrupted with visions of grandeur and

divinity that he forgot the very lesson of mortality that led him to the state in which he existed. It

is also possible that he misinterpreted the previously mentioned groveling of some senators as a

sign that he had broken the Senates will. Or perhaps in his arrogance he simply underestimated

the resolve and power of those whom he wished eliminated. It is most likely that a combination

of these three factors caused a group of senators to finally become successful in assassinating

Gaius, which Josephus described in great detail. A highly organized group of conspirators

37 Matyszak, 186-187.38 Nicholas H. Taylor “Caligula, the Church of Antioch, and the Gentile Mission.” Religion & Theology. Vol. 7 Issue 1. 139 Suetonius, 479.40 Matyszak, 185.41 Suetonius, 479.

15

involving senators, Claudius, the Praetorian Guard and several women all worked together to

trap Gaius and stab him to death in a tunnel that lead to the palace.42 The senators then hoped to

reinstate the Republic, but they were all deceived. The Praetorian Guard, understanding that they

had no job without an emperor, ensured that the senators would be unable to interfere as

Claudius was proclaimed emperor.43

Ironically, the Praetorian Guard was supposed to protect the emperor; why were they

instrumental in his death? It stands to reason that his pursuits to become a living god caused him

to make enemies in the Praetorian Guard and the Senate. The Senate was still not comfortable

with the idea of autocratic rule,44 and Gaius ignored the fact that they still did have power, even

if the people fully supported him. He made a serious error in killing Macro, a Praetorian who

was loyal to him. Although the Praetorian Guard always had the power to dispose of the

emperor, they were always able to be bought if patriotic loyalty did not exist. Gaius clearly

understood this concept when he bought of the Praetorian Guard during his reign, but why did he

seem to forget this fact during his rule? To our knowledge, Macro displayed no intentions of

betraying the young emperor, so what motivated his killing, and why would he not have been

bought off? These questions may never be fully answered, and they perhaps the most perplexing

and pertinent question that exist if Gaius was not killed due to his alleged insanity. Regardless of

Gaius’s motivations, or possibly his lack thereof, the Praetorian Guard who assisted in Gaius’s

assassination were easily bought off by the wealthy senators who, already distraught with the

emperor, always understood the power of the Praetorian Guard; the assassination of their former

prefect only made their cooperation more easily attained.

42 Flavius Josephus. Jewish Antiquities Books XVIII-XIX. (London: Harvard University Press, 1965), 263-271.43 Matyszak, 191-192.44 Ibid., 198.

16

Now arises the question as to Gaius’s alleged insanity. It is a fair statement to say that

Gaius was eccentric, but he survived an extremely traumatic upbringing, and clearly had divine

ambitions. Additionally, he possessed the political capacity to have the capability of

accomplishing his goals, a political savviness that would be nearly unattainable by one who

suffered from a mental disorder. Again, because Gaius displayed desensitization to violence and

complete apathy before his illness, and because this same pattern continued after his recovery, it

is logical to state that no major personality change occurred. Moreover, the lack of any records of

symptoms of psychosis outside of Suetonius’s account make it unfair to label Gaius as insane

from an investigative point of view.

Still, history has long held that Gaius was insane. How did this come about? As Sir

Winston Churchill said, history is written by the victors. Although their ultimate goal of restoring

the Republic was not accomplished, the Senate and the conspirators won. They were not soon to

forget the humiliations delivered to them by Gaius, and their influence permeated contemporary

accounts, especially that of Suetonius. But the conspirators inevitably had the final say, and their

influence has been felt to this day. Further evidence for the existence of this bias is found in

contemporary statues when compared to the written account of Suetonius. One particular statue

(see Figure 2)45 does not match Suetonius’s description of hollow temples, a broad and grim

forehead, thin hair, and a hairy body.46 Granted, statues of people at the time generally attempted

to improve the looks of the person, but the unshapely body described by Suetonius is barely

apparent at all. Regardless of which description is closer to the truth, the disagreement proves

that there was some form of conflict in Roman perception of Gaius. In stark contrast to the

Senate’s hatred of the emperor, the common people loved Gaius. It was always a great joy for

45 Wikipedia. "File:Cropped color calligula.ipg," Accessed October 3, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiFile: Cropped_color_calligula.ipg.46 Suetonius, 481.

17

the common man to see the aristocratic senator humiliated. There were even some senators who

prospered during Gaius’s reign, even with their humiliations.47 However, because the

conspirators won and because of their political position, their influence eventually won out over

the largely unrecorded sentiment of the people.

Conclusion

We now return to the original question: “What caused the Praetorian Guard to assassinate

Gaius Caligula? After examining the evidence from primary, classical, and modern sources, it is

apparent that the claim of Gaius’s mental insanity as the cause of his assassination is likely

untrue. Rather, his traumatic upbringing gave him a lust for power that led him to elevate himself

to the status of a living god, and the steps he took to accomplish his ambition incurred the wrath

of the Senate and Praetorian Guard. The murders of his family caused Gaius to become

emotionally unstable, and his time with the man who ordered their deaths not only increased that

instability, but also gave him the tools necessary to govern an empire. Tiberius set Gaius up to be

emperor, and stripped him of all moral codes and values outside of carnal pleasure. Because of

this, and because Gaius showed no signs of psychosis during any of this period, it can be argued

that Gaius was a product of Tiberius’s actions. For from the second that Gaius set his eyes upon

the throne, he sought the culmination of every carnal desire that had been shown to him by his

hated uncle. Because Tiberius killed every person who could possibly have helped Gaius develop

a mind based on virtue or any form of morality, Gaius gained the throne having experienced only

the emotions of sadness, fear, wrath, and lust. Having been given that mindset in an environment

of absolute worldly power, his brief brush with death and sole consolation in carnal pleasure

gave him a desire for extra-worldly power. Seeing no greater good than himself, he recklessly

pursued this ambition as he exterminated any threat to his power, just as Tiberius had done to

47 Matyszak, 193.

18

him. In so doing, he made enemies with the very people whom he needed to support him in this

world: the Praetorian Guard and the Senate It was out of recourse for these actions, which were

wrought with purposeful humiliation, not disillusioned arbitrariness, that the Senate enlisted the

help of the betrayed Praetorian Guard and assassinated Gaius, each party attempting to further

their own goals of power and wealth. Inevitably, it would seem, the quest of Gaius was a fruitless

one, and bears a moral on the destruction that tyrannical rule can bring that Seneca the Younger

saw immediately, which he referenced in the aptly titled work “On the Shortness of Life:”

“(Gaius’s) imitation of a crazy, outlandish, and ruinously arrogant king had very nearly cost ruin

and famine and the general catastrophe which follows famine.”48 From the beginning, Gaius had

no understanding of what it means to be a ruler. Instead of seeing it as a service to the people, he

saw it as a means to fulfill the desires given to him by Tiberius – namely the spoils of deification.

But in the end, Gaius’s quest to become a god had the opposite effect; he tasted the bloody

reality of mortality.

48 Seneca, The Stoic Philosophy of Senceca, translated by Moses Hadas. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1958), 71.

19

Bibliography

1. Boatwright, Mary T., Gargola,Daniel J., and Talbert., Richard J. A. The Romans: From Village to Empire. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004 SECONDARY 1.

2. Chang, Hsiu-Ju, Liao, Chien-Chang, Hu, Chaur Jong, Shen, Winston W., and Chen, Ta-Liang. "Psychiatric Disorders after Epilepsy Diagnosis: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study." PLOS One 8, no. 4 (2013): 1-7, http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf29_30/ pdf/2013/78BE/01Apr13/87677203.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=87677203&S=R&D=aph&EbscoContent=dGJyMNXb4kSep7Q4zdnyOLCmr0uepq5Ssq%2B4SbKWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPPj6lPr1%2BeGudvmh%2FHq. ARTICLE 1.

3. Jospehus, Flavius. Jewish Antiquities Books XVIII-XIX. Translated by Louis H. Feldman. London: Harvard University Press, 1965 PRIMARY 1.

4. Matyszak, Philip. The Sons of Caesar: Imperial Rome's First Dynasty. London: Thames & Hudson, 2006. SECONDARY 2.

5. Philo. The Works of Philo. Translated by C. D. Yonge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993. PRIMARY 2.

6. Seneca. The Stoic Philosophy of Seneca. Translated by Moses Hadas. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1958. PRIMARY 3.

7. Suetonius. Suetonius I. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. London: Harvard University Press, 1951. SECONDARY 3.

8. Tacitus, Conrelius. The Complete Works of Tacitus. Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. New York: Random House, 1942. SECONDARY 4.

9. Taylor, Nicholas H. "Caligula, the Church of Antioch and the Gentile Mission." Religion & Theology, 1-23. Accessed October 3, 2013. http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf14_16/pdf/ 2000/C4X/01Mar00/5033256.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=5033256&S=R&D=aph&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLe80SeprE4zdnyOLCmr0uepq9Srqy4SK6WxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPPj6lPr1%2BeG udvmh%2FHq, 2000. ARTICLE 2.

10. The University of Texas at Austin. "Map of the Roman Empire from Tiberius (14-37 AD) - Trajan (98 - 117 AD)." Accessed October 3, 2013. http://www.laits.utexas.edu/moore/rome/image/map-roman-empire-tiberius-14-37-ad-trajan-98-117-ad. MAP 1.

20

11. Wikipedia. "File:Cropped color calligula.ipg." Accessed October 3, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiFile:Cropped_color_calligula.ipg. PICTURE 1.

Figure 1.

21

Figure 2.