Customer Reviews

Caligula: The Corruption of Power

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Anthony Barrett, in his foreword, asks that scholars and academics shouldn't be too hard on him because "Caligula: Corruption of Power" is written for the popular consumption. If academics should judge him lightly, then the average reader should render a harsh verdict. This book is thick and rambling.

Barrett, sensitive to the great controversies about the life of Caligula, demonstrates that he has done his homework and provides every little detail he can. This ultimately has the effect of slowing the book down to an unimaginably slow pace and saps the life out of what should be an intriguing biography. While there are moments of pleasure one can derive from this historical sketch - for example Caligula's non-erotic relationship with his sisters - there is much that seems to be glanced over - like Caligula's relationship with the Emperor Tiberius.

The book has little sense of narrative and reads like an extended dissertation. This makes the reader feel like an outsider. We never quite grab ahold of the story, because the real story is buried under hundred of names, and equally as many side conversations.

One can appreciate that Barrett tried to present a balanced picture of Caligula; that is, he tried to put the various sources in some kind of perspective. This book is undoubtedly well reasearched and balanced. Moreover, there is very little speculating on what made Caligula tick. At least Barrett has enough respect for the reader to let them come to their own conclusions rather than over-analyzing a person in antiquity. However, while doing so he has created a book that is not fun to read and a portrait as colorless as the ancient Roman marble statues.

Taking a pragmatic look at infamous Roman emperors like Caligula and Nero may not be a popular thing to do (after all, it is more fun to think of them simply as crazy with no redeeming characteristics) but Anthony Barrett succeeds remarkably with this well-written book.

Caligula has been portrayed as a megalomaniac in films like The Robe and as seriously disturbed in "I, Claudius" and is the view people generally accept. Ancient historians were not like their modern counterparts who seek to reveal the truth behind people and events, and are not in agreement among themselves. Rather, their concern was to relate the truth as they saw it, and a bad emperor had to be bad man.

Mr. Barrett writes well and gives us a biography that can appeal to the historian and general reader. He examines the sources and archaeological evidence to provide a well-ground appraisal of Caligula's personality. The discussion is well reasoned and Mr. Barrett presents a good deal of material to support his conclusions. There is an excellent selection on the coins, inscriptions and portraits of Caligula, and a list of his victims with source citations. The personality that emerges may not be the one who slept with his sisters and thought he was Jove but a ruthless tyrant remains.

This is a very scholarly, in-depth book on one of the more controversial Emperors in Roman history. For millennia he has been seen as an insane and murderous monster who slept with his sister and tried to make his horse a consul. But was he really as bad as the sources tell us? Not according to Barrett, and anyone reading the book is sure to find his explanations convincing. This book is hardly a whitewash however. The picture that one forms is of an arrogant and highly suspicious young man with a nasty sense of humor who was determined to see how far his powers could go. Hardly a flattering portrait, but not the demented maniac so familiar in popular representations. Barrett points out many points when he made intelligent decisions which match the best of Emperors. As a look at his basic character the book is a success in showing what was almost certainly the personality of this rather pathetic man.

Now for the bad side. The book is written in a dense and confusing scholarly style which is extremely difficult to follow. This wouldn't be so bad in a scholarly book except that at the very beginning he explains that his purpose is to write it for a more general audience. In that he utterly fails. As a scholarly work it works, though clunky, but as a popular biography it fails to impress. The majority of the book is dedicated to examining the minutiae of what Caligula did throughout his reign. His personality is covered mostly in the opening and concluding chapters. Throughout the rest of the book he seems to be just ahead of you, you follow what he does but you never really get a feel for who he was. Nonetheless, the man's life was interesting. It's just a shame that this book wasn't placed in the hands of a better writer.

In popular culture, the name Caligula has come to represent violence, madness, depravity and untold evil. However, few people have taken the time to study and wade through the many and often conflicting histories of Gaius Caesar, more readily known as Caligula.

Throughout history, Emperor Gaius Caesar, has been portrayed as the epitome of a ruthless despot, who disgustingly and savagely exploited his position of power. However, Dr. Barrett successfully attempts to pare down the historical exaggerations regarding Gaius' reign, and debunk many of the myths that were the result of grudges and prejudices espoused by antiquity's historians, most notably the famed Dio and Suetonius.

Barrett maintains that Caligula did indeed exploit his power, going so far as to force the wives of Roman nobles to enter his bedroom, flay and execute those seen as potential usurpers with little or no evidence, and occasionally fulfilling whims that can only be seen to border on madness.

Still, Barrett contends that these traits were not solely confined to the reign of Caligula. Rather, Barrett provides evidence that the unseemly behavior of Gaius Caesar was not uncommon to nearly all of the Julio-Claudian emperors.

"All of the Julio-Claudians exhibit to some degree the same combination of a passion for vulgar pursuits and a lively interest in matters of the intellect."-Barrett

Aside from Barrett's comparison between emperors, he provides enlightening insight into the works of Dio and Suetonius, perhaps the foremost historians of Caligula's reign. In his work, Barrett examines the possible flaws in the works of both Dio and Suetonius, exploring and reinterpreting much of the material in order to better understand the actual mentality of Caligula.

For example, Barrett argues that many of the tales of Gaius' debauchery could actually be rooted in the Emperor's sharp, albeit crude humor. He argues that many of Caligula's notable acts of depravity may not have occurred, but were the result of misinformation and rumor, based upon Caligula's scathing and unpredictable wit. It is contended that Caligula's words caused more upset than his actions.

Although Barrett's account of Caligula does not release the emperor of any of his infamy, it places his behavior into the realm of the less spectacular. Barrett argues that rather than epitomize an evil despot, Gaius Caesar was simply one of many emperors of the time who were corrupted by power and found themselves filling their animalistic and hedonistic desires, often at the expense of their subjects.

The title seems to be a bit of a misnomer for the title of Barrett's book. The reason is that while he does exploit much of Caligula's corruption, it is in essence a refutation of much of the traditional teachings about Caligula's madness and depravity. In fact, Barrett seems to discredit these common views, thereby substantially ameliorating the conventional perception of Caligula's corruption.

Point being: This is a common theme throughout the book, that of contradiction. He cites example after example from Suetonius, Dio, et al of egregious behavior by the ruler, yet invariably discredits virtually each and every bit of fact on the matter by impugning the interest of the original sources' claims.

Being merely a casual fan of the Caesars, this was not the book for me. While copiously researched and quite well-written, it reads too much like a dissertation and not enough like a book. I would highly recommend studying up a bit on Caligula for the lay reader before tackling this book. I must admit i did find much of it interesting and compelling, and for the scholar or avid Roman reader, this book seems to posit some contrarian views as well as comprehensive history and context which could greatly benefit your knowledge. But if you are just looking for an overview on C's life and a pleasurable read with a little more sizzle about his "corruption", I would recommend looking elsewhere.

This is the first biography I've read on Caligula. I have read several other books that touched on him, but this is the first full-length book I've read on him. This is the first case of reading a biography on anyone from the ancient world where I felt like I really didn't need to read it. I got plenty of info on Caligula from Michael Grant's books or biographies on Tiberious (Caligula's predecessor). I once read an article on Caligula in a journal that discussed the theory where the reason behind his madness was due to Interictal Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Barrett's book starts out great with a lot of background information on Caligula's family and his struggle to move into the number one slot in the Roman Empire. He talks about Caligula's father Germanicus in detail which I enjoyed. I have been trying to find a good book on Germanicus for a long time. We was one of the most popular people in his day and well liked by the population and elite. Then Barrett spins into questions of whether or not Caligula was fit to rule. Most of it didn't make sense to me and was based on a lot of speculation. I did like his appendix and end notes. Those are always value added if done well and Barrett knows how to do them. In the same fashion as his later book on Agrippina, Barrett has a few interesting lists including "Named Victims of Caligula" and how they were victimized. There is a bout a five page photo spread which is kind of weak, but a few good timelines and other easily accessible data. It is not necessary to read this whole book if you want to know more about Caligula. I would suggest reading Grant's The Twelve Caesars. Grant gives a good overview on who Caligula was and what his reign was all about. Save this book for the hardcore.

While I fully understand Professor Barrett's reason for writing this book, i.e. to give a fully rounded and balanced perspective of the reign of the first century Roman emperor Caligula, I have to say it was poorly structured and poorly executed. Professor Barrett obviously does not wish to demonize his subject by listing lurid (and possibly spurious?) details of his reign, yet he has leaned so far in the other direction that he has given us an almost Pollyannish view. I realize that we are looking back at the reign of Caligula through the haze of almost 2000 years of history and I realize that many of the people who have written on his reign were either hostile to him or simply working with incorrect information, but are we to believe that they all wrong? We all know why Caligula is such a compelling figure from history: because of the tales of the horrific nature of his reign and the debate as to whether he was, in fact, insane. Professor Barrett would have us believe that Caligula was simply a "conceited, ill-mannered, and rather irresponsible young ruler." I find it hard to believe that Caligula was murdered after four years in power simply because he was ill-mannered. The book starts with promise but goes downhill from there. Professor Barrett moves through Caligula's four years in power so fast, the reader never gets a sense, positive or negative, of what his reign was really like. While chapters discussing his campaigns in North Africa, Germany and Great Britain should be important parts of the book, the author spends so much time discussing people, places and events peripheral to the story and debating the historians that the reader comes away, at best, confused. Other chapters were discussed in this same, confusing way. Moreover, why were chapters discussing relations with the Jewish people and Roman structures that Caligula built placed at the very end of the book instead of at the beginning where they could put his reign into perspective? I looked forward to reading a book that would shine a light on Caligula from all sides but this book is definitely not it.

Anthony Barrett's book offers a very balanced view of Caligula's brief reign. By carefully examining coinage, sculpture and the scarce, extremely biased and often contradictory literary sources he creates a very vivid and well documented portrait of one of history's most interesting despots. Was Caligula a deranged madman or just an eccentric and inexperienced young man who suddenly found himself at the top of a huge and highly organised empire? The unreliability of the extant literary accounts of his life, sometimes written generations after his death, makes certainty impossible, but Mr. Barrett manages to reconstruct the most important aspects of his reign and personality in a very clear and persuasive manner. According to him, Caligula was, among other things, a refined and educated man and a very talented administrator, but he also had a penchant for overspending and a sardonic sense of humour that was often misinterpreted by his contemporaries. However, his behaviour was sometimes cruel and whimsical and he did have a lot of problems in his relations with the senate (which was a body that represented the interests of the nobility and not, as some people seem to believe, a democratic institution). Well written and painstakingly researched, this a great book that is both scholarly and involving.

This is an intriguing look into one of the most troubled minds of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Being a Classicist, I have found that this is a more objective approach to studying and evaluating history. The astute reader of ancient historians, would be able to recognize the many biases riddled throughout say, the works of Suetonius. History is allowed many interpretations, and Barrett in no way disparages any ancient historians, but points out that there are other ways to approach an enigmatic figure, rather than merely branding him as "crazy". Family history is an important element to consider - most of what constitutes a human being is genetic, however, to a degree, we may become products of our times and our environment. Barrett illustrates this quite beautifully.

This book is a well argued, persuasive and scholarly study of the life of Caligula, a Roman emperor legendary for his supposed debauches. It is not a chronicle of Caligula's crimes--read "The Twelve Caesars" if that is what you want. Instead, it is a scholarly study that dismisses many of the stories about Caligula as lies, while still admitting that Caligula was an immature, unpleasant young man. At times it goes too far in rationalizing Caligula's deeds, and crosses the line in dismissing stories about him as lies. But still, it is a good book that nobody who is interested in the Julio-Claudians should be without.