Caligula: Emperor of Rome (Hardcover)

~ (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal

Anthony A. Barrett's excellent Caligula: The Corruption of Power ( LJ 3/1/90) recently revived an old debate about whether Caligula did all the insane things ancient historians attributed to him. Ferrill simply assumes that he did, and portrays Caligula as a madman almost beyond compare. On the whole, Ferrill's work contributes nothing new to understanding Caligula or his brief reign (37-41 A.D.), and is not much more than a superficial biography based on hostile ancient sources such as Suetonius. If the book has any value, it is the simplicity with which Ferrill presents Caligula's family history. Perhaps this will appeal to informed laypersons. Academic libraries can skip. BOMC alternate.
- Jackson P. Hershbell, Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Kirkus Reviews

Grim biography of Rome's greatest monster, Caligula (A.D. 12- 41). Ferrill (History/Univ. of Washington) dismisses the Caligula of Lloyd C. Douglas's The Robe, Robert Graves's I, Claudius, Bob Guccione's X-rated film, and J.P.V.D. Balsdon's The Emperor Gaius (1934) as largely bad jobs, and argues that Anthony Barrett's Caligula: The Corruption of Power (1989) rationalizes that Caligula ``was not insane and that he was intelligent.'' Not so, Ferrill insists: Caligula was as mad as mad can be. He sees the young prince coddled and treated almost as a god since birth. As a child, Caligula knew much terror, with his father apparently being poisoned and his mother forever raving against the emperor. Caligula was not in direct line for the crown, but political machinations (by others, not himself) landed him in the purple. Before that, he seduced his two younger sisters, then went to live with Uncle Tiberius, the emperor, on Capri, where Tiberius reveled as a wildly inventive sex maniac. At Tiberius's death, a Praetorian slipped Caligula in as emperor, and for his first six months the young emperor was well liked for his insane generosity. He fell sick briefly, and upon his recovery joy turned to civil terror. Murder was the least of his sins and the smart died first. He had one senator's body chopped up before him. At parties he had sex with anyone's wife, with the husband attending. He deified his dead sister, and tried to have his own statue put into Jewish temples, which would have caused civil war had he not been assassinated. And that's only a skim of his crimes. Feels padded even at 184 pages, and Ferrill's dismissiveness of others grates and does not make for happy reading. (Twenty-two illustrations and copious footnotes--not seen.) -- Copyright ©1991, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 184 pages
• Publisher: Thames & Hudson; 1st US ed edition (July 1991)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0500251126
• ISBN-13: 978-0500251126
• Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.5 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #455,229 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #27 in

  Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Political Science > Psychology

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars "Let them hate me as long as they fear me", November 1, 2005

By	Sebastian Fernandez (Tampa, Florida United States) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)

When one hears the name of Caligula, the most common reaction is to associate him with the notions of craziness and evil. I believe this partly accurate, but to go from that to saying that nothing he did was based on reason is a bit farfetched. This is what Ferrill does, and the main problem with his book is that even though he says in the introduction that he will prove his point, the only proof he provides is of the type "I believe these historians and not these others".

It seems to me that it is very hard to find a balanced view of the life of Caligula, since other historians, like Barrett, are on the other side of the spectrum, and may give the controversial figure too much "merit". So I guess the process for really understanding "Little Boots" involves reading different sources and drawing your own conclusions. And this is one of the aspects in which this book can help, since even though the author fails in proving his point, he presents a brief description of what different authors believe about various important episodes in the life of the emperor. This can certainly help the reader in her quest for further enlightenment.

It is obvious that some works require reading if one is interested in the life of Caligula, and I am in the process of doing that. I am currently working on "The Twelve Caesars" by Suetonius, who is the author Ferrill refers too most often in search for support; arguing that since he lived at the time (which is not entirely true, since he was born three decades after the reign of Caligula) he knows better. The main source on the other side of the issue seems to be Barrett, whose work I have browsed but need to reread more thoroughly.

Even though Ferrill does not deliver what he promises, his book does add some value to the discussion and therefore I rated it as an OK read.

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars This book accepts historical evidence too uncritically., November 16, 1997

By A Customer

Ferrill's book makes interesting reading as a chronicle of Caligula's supposed crimes, but as that only. He spends much of the book recounting stories by Suetonius that have no other historical backing. Suetonius's credibility is questionable, and Ferrill should have tried to prove that Suetonius was trustworthy before he accepted the man's work without question. Nevertheless, I agree with many of Ferrill's conclusions; he just didn't back them up enough.

2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars A Disappointing Caligula, July 28, 2000

By	D. A Wend (Buffalo Grove, IL USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

This book should have been much better. Mr. Ferrill does not follow his own advice to treat ancient historians with caution. He believes every word and is highly critical of scholars who have rationalized the life of Caligula to what has been written about him. There is no doubt that Caligula's reputation has suffered from hostile writers and Mr. Ferrill cannot be objective enough to see beyond the smokescreen. He tries to provide evidence that Caligula was crazy before his illness and comes up with his spending large amounts of the money Tiberius left. This is a dubious argument and only proves that Caligula had no idea of the value of money.

Rather than discuss the evidence pro and con on the many points Ferrill resorts to the device that Caligula was crazy so we cannot expect an irrational person to be reasonable. This is simply a cop-out. The madness of Caligula is one of a gradual disintegration of the emperor's mind but Ferrill does not give any idea why this is true or what illness is at work. In the brief discussion of Caligula declaring himself a god, there is no discussion of the concept of the emperor's numen.

Having read a great deal about Caligula I can say that "Caligula:Emperor of Rome" expresses a minority opinion. Mr. Ferrill does not to mention obvious contradictions in Suetonius' life of Caligula that cast him in a favorable light. Ferrill even says that even if some stories by ancient historians are "untrue or greatly exaggerated, there can be little doubt that Caligula was one of the cruelest rules Rome ever had." What is certain to me is that Mr. Ferrill cannot persuade us by logic so he must resort to stepping around the difficult question of who Caligula was and what he did.

One cannot contradict the fact that Caligula was a ruthless autocrat who was provocative in what he said and did. Without a doubt, the turbulent childhood he experienced left a mark on his character. However, Caligula is more complex that the stereotypical mad monarch presented in this book. Mr. Ferrill is correct in suggesting that it is possible for someone who is mad to become an emperor but it is also true that one does not have to be insane to be cruel.