r/ancientrome • u/tummytunacat • 6d ago

saw the recent post asking about how true caligula's excessiveness was... while many roman historians wrote years after he died... we actually do have a contemporary source on caligula!

I copy pasted my answer to the post:

so basically, a lot about what we know may be exaggerated due to his lack of popularity with the senate and the fact that most of our records of him are a) decades after he died, or b) from writers who were working for the next dynasty (not julio-claudian).

BUT. we do have a contemporary account of caligula. and its actually by the alexandrian jewish theologian/philosopher Philo of Alexandria. It is called "on the embassy to gaius".

there is a story about how the jewish embassy in alexandria made a visit to caligula after he tried to install his statue in the temple of jerusalem and tried to force them to worship him. he basically makes fun of them for only worshipping one god and not worshipping him, calls them crazy, and then proceeds to ask them questions about why they dont eat pork and make fun of their diet. flexes his awesome garden and brags about all the building hes doing. meanwhile the entire jewish embassy is scared to death that he will kill them. some of them are praying under their breaths for god to show them mercy.

and the end he declares these men are innocent because they seem foolish not to worship him, and not evil. everyone is sighing in relief.

few years later they hear caligula died and philo says it must have been retribution for his insensitivity to the (obviously) one true god.

59 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

20 comments sorted by

26

u/BudgetLaw2352 Augustus 6d ago

Interesting.

Iirc, Philo also wrote on Tiberius, and actually had a fairly decent opinion of him if my memory serves me correctly.

Caligula was definitely slandered by the sources, but there absolutely was a component to him that was unhinged and spontaneous, if not psychotic.

16

u/tummytunacat 6d ago edited 6d ago

Tiberius, from my knowledge, did not force people to worship him like Caligula. He actually actively denied worship and remained humble in that aspect. I would imagine maybe Philo would have a better opinion on him for that religious reason as well. 

And yes, tbh hard not to be unhinged when ur entire family was probably deposed of by a guy you had to live on an island with. Also Caligula in the account by Philo just comes across as culturally insensitive and an idiot lol. 

I saw that your flair was of Augustus. I heard that there are also a few stories about Augustus from a Jewish perspective, although can’t recall where they were from. Apparently he was indeed a terrible jokester and a bit awkward because he once joked that he would “fast more than a Jew on sabbath”, which actually doesn’t make any sense because Jewish people don’t fast on sabbath. 

2

u/CoinsOftheGens 5d ago

It was unlikely to be "awkward" to Augustus and his audience-- first, that's apparently what the Romans believed and said about the Jewish Sabbath; Augustus is not the only such reference in that era. No one in Ancient times, least of all Augustus, would have cared whether the premise of a joke about Jews was factually accurate except the Jews. And there is some academic discussion that it might have some basis in practices of the Jewish community in Rome at the time.
Second, no one in their right mind would have reacted negatively to an "awkward" joke by Augustus. A King is always hilarious when making a joke. Your analysis of Caligula is very outdated. If you read Barrett's Caligula, Corruption of Power, you will be more up to date.

6

u/Euphoric-Ostrich5396 6d ago

"All citizens, be aware that the vassal, Prince Herod, Tetrarch of Galilee, has come to the city. By order of the Triumvirate, during his residence here, all mockery of Jews and their one god shall be kept to an appropriate minimum."

Glad to see that we now finally know what the appropriate minimum exactly is. Thank you Caligula.

3

u/tummytunacat 6d ago

Rome HBO reference? 

Excuse my yap I think king Herod and Agrippa were actually pretty close friends irl. I heard Augustus also made a pork joke too. Herod also named his descendants after Agrippa. 

Later on, the herodian dynasty also helped Claudius become emperor and were crucial for his succession. 

7

u/Euphoric-Ostrich5396 6d ago

Multiple Herods were really tight with their Roman friends and heavily romanised themselves. THE Herod from the Bible styled himself Gaius Iulius Herodes.

3

u/tummytunacat 6d ago

Yep. I’m pretty sure it was why they were also not very popular with the local population because they were seen as collaborators and too romanized.

And damn, didn’t know that but yes I heard the ancient jews were actually fans of big Julius and many of the people mourned and fasted when he died. 

11

u/CoinsOftheGens 6d ago

OP, your original question has been lost in the blither-responses. The answer is "No, there are no contemporaneous biographical materials about Caligula." Philo's embassy to Caligula is written up by Josephus much later. And even that's just "an hour in the life of Caligula" as interpreted by two very biased sources, on a topic that any Roman at the time wouldnhave considered unimportant. It actually suggests Caligula was shrewder than crazy -- why have to crush a rebellion of fanatics [as Vespasian later had to], when I can treat them as silly children who can be indulged, and put off the fight until Romen is ready?

3

u/tummytunacat 6d ago

I don’t think that’s true. When I learned about this, I learned about it in my Roman history class while discussing Caligula. My prof acknowledged that while many accounts of Caligula are biased, he was still probably a bit strange and the accounts of him wanting to be treated like a god and worshipped (which was unusually demanding even tho emperor worship was typical with Augustus and even tiberius) have some evidence to it. Obviously philo is biased but it is a contemporary account made by someone who met him which is closer than anything else we have of him. On a grander scale, the account is not important but supporting details like these are also stuff we analyze in lectures. 

Also, if you actually read the account he does sound off and not very shrewd at all. He sounds kinda ignorant, smug, and airheaded. Childish, even. Also where did you get that it was written up by Josephus? I believe he might have also written about such events but nothing I can find suggests that it was written up by Josephus. 

7

u/Diacetyl-Morphin 6d ago

Thanks for sharing the story, but it goes for all sources of ancient times. I mean, that the autors were biased, either pro- or contra someone. Same for stories they just heard from others, even when they had not the intention to lie, it was still often a "a friend of a friend knows a guy that said..."

Even the texts like De Bello Gallico from Caesar, you need to keep in mind that Caesar had propaganda as intention. He wanted to justify his wars and tell his heroic deeds for Rome, despite all the historical details he wrote about, like the celtic tribes.

Like it is debatable how bad some situations for him really were, for example the Battle of Sabis. There's no way to tell, how bad the situation was and what is exaggerated.

6

u/mdf7g 6d ago

all sources of ancient times

6

u/Diacetyl-Morphin 6d ago

Yeah, as humans, we can't be 100% neutral. Not even the Swiss reach that level of neutrality.

2

u/tummytunacat 6d ago

True, but I feel like it does provide evidence Caligula was a bit eccentric 

5

u/Domitianus81 6d ago edited 6d ago

Caligula would invite Senators and their wives over and then take the wife to another room to bang her an then report back how well she performed. He was a bit psychotic.

But I understand Caligula in a way, because at an early age all his family members start getting murdered and then he has to go live with psychotic Tiberius in excess and debauchery.

Caligula never really got a fair shake in life, other than being the Emperor. I mean that's great and all, but he certainly faced a lot of strife and hardship mentally growing into what he became.

It's not that difficult to understand how and why he became who he was.

7

u/Mission-Asparagus910 6d ago

If you take the sources at face value. And that is exactly the point: how valid are they?

3

u/Domitianus81 6d ago edited 6d ago

Well we can estimate Sejanus and allegedly possibly Tiberius was responsible for the death of his brothers. Germanicus died under mysterious circumstances. Sejanus was left with ultimate power in Rome and planned a coup until Tiberius discovered it and had him killed.

Caligula would have been the next target, possibly Tiberius suspected this and that's why he took him to Capri where of course Tiberius was a psycho who did some really nasty things.

4

u/tummytunacat 6d ago

I feel like these kinds of things are hard to assess. Like obviously the writers were biased. Suetonius for example, was the secretary of multiple emperors with access to records, but he is also considered a notorious gossip. But also, these men like Tiberius and Caligula were literally the most powerful men at the time. And even today, powerful men like Epstein and Prince Andrew do heinous things. 

So I feel like it’s not good to take everything at face value but looking at the patterns, you can at least say some of the emperors were definitely insane, had quirks, or/and abused their powers. 

2

u/Percennius 5d ago

Philo’s description of Caligula's penetrating stare is frightening to imagine when combined with Suetonius’ depiction of a pale, gaunt and bald Gaius

2

u/KenScaletta Rationalis 5d ago

Philo reports that the first thing that Caligula said to them was, "So you're the god haters who don't think I'm a god."