When you begin your journey into Roman iconography; you will find most of the work in this field is in German.  It is important to read book reviews by known experts in english.  Below is a list of links to book reviews on Julio-Claudian Iconography:
 
Book Review by John Pollini on Die Bildnisse des Augustus, Das romische Herrsherbild, pt. 1, vol.2 Berlin: Gebruder Mann Verlag, 1993. 252 pp; 239 b/w ills, 9 foldouts. DM290

GO TO: www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0422/is_4_81/ai_58926051

This is 13 pages long, but well worth the reading.

Book Review on Die Bildnisse des Caligula.  Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Das romische Herrscherbild 1,4.  Berlin:  Gebr. Mann Verlag.  138 pp., 52 pls. ISBN 3-7861-1524-9.  DM 190- Book Review from American Journal of Numismatics 3-4 New York 1992- By Fred S. Kleiner.
(Joe Geranio Http://www.portraitsofcaligula.com)
A  half century ago the German Archaeological Institute inaugurated an ambitious project to collect and publish in a series of volumes entrusted to different scholars all the surviving portraits of the Roman emperors and their families.  Progress has been unusually slow and the Romische Herrsherbild project is far from complete today.  In fact, latest fascicle, on the portraits of Caligula, is only the first of at least ten planned volumes in part  devoted to julius Caesar, Augustus, and the emperors, empresses, princes, and princesses of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, as well as to Galba, Otho, and Vitellius.  Dietrich Boschung. the primary author, and Hans-Marcus von kaenel, who contributed a chapter on the numismatic portraits, were not even born when the series was begun.  Both are students of the late Hans Jucker, to whom the Caligula portraits were originally assigned, but who had not completed his work when he died in March 1984.  At that time his two proteges were given the considerable body of photographs and casts that Jucker had assembled over many years as well as Juckers's notes, and this enabled the two younger scholars to complete their manuscripts in the fall of 1986. The resulting monograph, published three years later, is appropriately dedicated to their teacher and the title page duly acknowledges that the volume was written "auf Grund der Vorarbeiten und Materialsammlungen von Hans Jucker."  Like the earlier fascicles of part 2 and 3 of the Romische Herrsherbild series, the primary goal of the volume on the portraits of Caligula remains the collection of all surviving likenesses of the emperor and the reconstruction of the lost prototypes that lie behind the many replicas produced throughout the empire, sometimes at a great distance from the capital.  The aim of such a "Replikenrezension" is to isolate the most faithful copies of each of the emperor's portrait "types" and to distinguish such "true" replicas of the master images created in Rome, usually in gilded bronze, from those copies, generally in marble, that depart, sometimes markedly, from the officially approved types.  "Urbild", "Haupttypus" "Nebentypus," "Variant des Haupttypus," "Umbildung," etc. are terms that quickly become familiar to anyone studying Roman imperial portraiture.  The portraits of the Julio-Claudian emperors and their families present special problems because so many of the Julio-Claudians look alike-in their official likenesses, that is, if perhaps not in life.  "Bildnisangleichung" was sought for all members of the ruling dynasty and julio-Claudian portraits have such an intentionally homogeneous "look" that the isolation and identification of individual portrait types is at times exceedingly difficult.  The problems are even more acute in the case of those like Caligula whose portraits were often recut after their deaths to approximate the appearance of their successors or, in some instances, of their divine predessesors.  In the absence of surviving statues with inscribed bases naming the persons portrayed, scholars have for centuries turned to coins for labeled portraits of Roman notables.  Thus it is no suprise that numismatic evidence has always played a large role in the study of Roman portraiture.  The evidence provided by coins has, however, frequently been used uncritically by archaeologists and art historians.  All too often publishing those publishing Roman portraits examne and illustrate as comparanda only a few randomly selected pieces, most often those reproduced on the plates of the British Museum's multi-volume catalouge or specimens readily available to them in local collections, whether they be comprehensive cabinets like those in London, New York, Paris, etc. or the small study collections in the possession of some university museum.  Reliance on such a sample can easily lead the art historian astray.  The coin portraits need to be subjected to their own "Replikenrezension" and to achieve this a die study is required.  Only the earliest dies in a given series are likely to be faithful reproductions of the official (three-dimensional) model provided to the mint.  All subsequent dies will be copies, occasionally with pronounced variations, of the profile portraits engraved on the first dies.  For use in sophisticated modern studies of imperial portraiture, only coins struck from earliest dies in each series will suffice.  The present editors of the Romische Herrsherbild series are cognizant of this and hope wherever possible to enlist numismatists and collaborators, although they anticipate that qualified scholars will not always be available (p.9). In the case of Caligula's portraits, Boschung was fortunate in having von kaenel as his partner.  The latter is the author of Munzpragung und Munzbildnis des Claudius, AMuGS9 (Berlin 1986) as well as an article on Caligula's coinage, "Die Organisation der Caligulas." RSN 66 (1987), pp. 135-56, written at the same time as his Romische Herrscherbild text.  Von Kaenel's chapter in Die Bildnisse des Caligula (pp.13-26) treats the official coinage ("Reichspragung") exclusively.  Other coins bearing the portraits of Caligula (Provinzial-und Lokalpragung") are not examined.  They are, in the opinion of von kaenel (and I concur), more valuable as documents of the "Rezeption" of imperial imagery in the provinces than as a means of defining the official portrait types themselves (p.16) Gold, silver, and aes coinage are, however, all studied.  The portraits of Claigula on the aureii and denarii are all in right profile; those on the sestertii, dupondii, and asses are all in left profile.  Von Kaenel concludes that all of the imperial issues reproduce a single official portrait type and that what variations exist are of a stylistic and not of a typological nature.  Furthermore, since the two profile views are not mirror images, von Kaenel suggests that they faithfully reproduce the left and right side respectively of a single model in the round and he believes that the comparison with marble replicas of Boschung's "Haupttypus" confirm that the same same master "Vorbild" lies behind both the sculptured and numismatic replicas.  According to von Kaenel, the Roman die engravers were provided with either a single head in the round to serve as a model for their miniature profile portraits or with two seperate relief portraits corresponding to the left and right sides of a sculptured head of Caligula's " Haupttypus."  This is an important observation and it would be interesting to know if it is typical of Roman numismatic portraiture for left- and right-facing portraits of the same person to be rendered differently or whether the coinage of Caligula is exceptional in not emplying mirror images.  Whatever the answer to the larger question, Caligula's coins unfortunatley cannot be cited as incontrovertilble evidence that Roman die engravers had models in the round from which some copied the left profile and others the right profile.  Von Kaenel assumes that the coins he has collected and analyzed are almost exclusivley product of the imperial mint at Rome, but there is a growing consensus that while Claigula's aes issues were struck in the capital, the bulk if not all of his gold and silver coinage was produced at Lugdunum (Lyons). (See, sot recently, WE. Metcalf, "Rome and Lugdunum Again," AJN 1 [1989],pp. 51-70.)  The fact that Caligula's left and right profile portraits on coins are different might mean that both mints worked from portrait models of the same type- the selection of one profile or the other could then be a knid of mint signature-but it could also indicate that one portrait was copied in the capital and another one Gaul.  I therefore cannot agree with von Kaenel when he states (p.17 n.10) that the identification of Caligula's precious-metal mint has little significance fro the analysis of the emperor's portraits on coins.  In the main section of Die Bildnisse des Caligula, Dietrich Boschung discusses the portrait sculpture of the emperor and the relevant literary and epigraphic evidence (pp. 27-103) and catalouges all known Caligula portraits, both in the round and on gems, including those refashioned as images of Claudius (pp. 105-24).  Much of Boschung's discussion falls outside the realm of a review in a journal of numismatics and will not be evaluated here, but certain methodological issues properly deserve to be examined.  It is Boschung's contention that virtually all the surviving portraits of Caligula are copies of a single lost masterwork (the verlorenes Urbild").  The vase majority of the replicas adhere more or less closely to what he dubs Caligula's "Haupttypus," while a small number are classified as belonging to either the emperor's first or second "Nebentyous." Within the "Haupttypus" Boschung distinguishes between a "Kerngruppe" of five replicas that are "sehr geuaue Kopien" and others that are "abweichende Repliken," "Varianten," or "Weiterentwicklungen" of the "Haupttypus."  This is a departure from the schemes of other scholars who have studied Caligula's portraits, where the emperor's preserved likenesses are divided into distinct types.  In adopting his scheme, Boschung may have been unduly influenced by von Kaenel's research on Caligula's numismatic portraits.  Even if all of Caligula's coinage was produced at a single mint, and the mint was located in the capital rather than in Lugdunum, there is no reason to assume that the number of portrait types employed for the coinage nad the number of types used for statuary was the same.  Although numismatic portraiture and portrait sculpture are closely related, they are not identical species.  In any case, Boschung's attribution of almost all of the emperor's sculptured portraits to a single "Haupttypus" is questionable.  The key elements in the definition of a portrait type are physiognomy and coiffure.  The latter is the more objective criterion but cannot be applied in isolation because different Romans could and did not comb their hair in the same manner.  Indeed, common coiffures are an essential ingredient of the "Angleichung" of Julio-Cladian dynastic portraiture.  On the other hand, variations in hairstyle among portraits with similiar physiognimies are usually the chief means in distinguishing the various portrait types of a single person.  It is not uncommon for new types to be created at important stages of a Roman's career; open any book on Roman portraiture and you are likely to read, for example, about an emperor's "accession type" as distinct from the type in use when the emperor-to-be was merely a prince.  Boschung, however, argues that even very marked differences in coiffure, which ahve led to others to define seperate Caligulan portraits types, can be explained in terms of deviations from a common prototype.  I am not convinced.  Even Boschung does not assert that every Caligulan portrait is a replica of the "haupttypus," and so, as I have already mentioned, he defines a first and decong "Nebentypus" and "Varianten des Haupttypus" are strained at times.  In fact, there is so much variety in the surviving portraits of Caligula compared, for example, tot he far more numerous likenesses in marble and bronze of Octavian/Augustus, that one wonders whether it is appropriate at all to impose the rigid Germanic type-system upon Caligulan material.  Yet nearly all of the pages Boschung devotes to Caligula's portraits are filled with special pleading of that kind.  If there is more than one type for Caligula's portraits in the round, but only a single type reproduced on the coinage, as von Kaenel suggests, one may ask a general question of some significance:  How valuable is numismatic evidence for the study of Roman portrait sculpture?  My anser is that the evidence furnished by the coins is crucial but of limited value.  It is obvious that as the only source of consistently labeled Roman portraits, coins will always have to provide the basis for all identification of public figures portrayed in statuary, narrative releif sculpture, and gems.  On the other hand, there is no reason to expect that every change in portrait type will be immediately reflected on the coinage and that the coins can in turn establsih the date of introduction of each new type.  It is especially unlikely that changes in type would automatically be adopted at mints located outside Rome, even if their emissions are of an official character (like the "Reichspragung" of Lugdunum as opposed to official to "Provinzial-und Lokalpragung").  For the definition and dating of "Bildnistypen" the Roman coinage is of only limited assistance.  Coins may also mislead us even with regard to the identification of portraits.  It has often been observed that the earliest numismatic portraits of new emperors occasionally bear a striking resemblance to the obverse portraits of their immediate predecessors, no doubt because official portrait models of the new rulers were not yet available.  In the case of provincial issues, the portraits of some emperors are very inconsistent and neither fidelity to life nor fidelity to establsihed portrait type can be assumed.  Roman coins may be indispensable ot the student of Roman portrait sculpture, and I applaud the efforts of the editors of Das romische Herrscherbild to incorporate a significant numismatic section in each new volume, but the evidence the coins provide is unlikely to be as definitive as art historians would like.    
Fred Kleiner- Boston University  


Gaius (Caligula)

Selected journal articles

  • Balsdon, J.P.V.D. "Gaius and the Grand Cameo of Paris" Journal of Roman Studies 26 (1936) 152-160
  • Balsdon, J.P.V.D. "Notes Concerning the Principate of Gaius" Journal of Roman Studies 24 (1934) 13-24
  • Barrett, A.A. "Claudius, Gaius and the Client Kings" Classical Quarterly 40 (1990) 284-286 
  • Barrett, Anthony A. "Caligula's Quadrans Issue" Latomus 57.4 (1998) 846-852 
  • Bicknell, P. "The Emperor Gaius' Military Activities in A.D.40" Historia 17 (1968) 496-505 
  • Boudreau Flory, M. "Caligula's Inverecundia: A Note on Dio Cassius 59.12.1" Hermes 114 (1986) 365-371 
  • Ceausescu, P. "Caligula et le legs d'Auguste" Historia 22 (1973) 269-283 
  • Davies, R.W. "The `Abortive Invasion' of Britain by Gaius" Historia 15 (1966) 124-128 
  • Donciu, R. "La règne de Gaius considéré comme "plaque tournante" dans l'histoire de l'Empire Romain" Klio 71 (1989) 636-649 
  • Gury, Françoise "Caligula entre les Castores" Mélanges R. Turcan [in full] (1999) 265-280
  • Gury, Francoise "L'ideologie imperiale et la lune: Caligula" Latomus 59.3 (2000) 564-595
  • Jakobson, A./ Cotton, H.M. "Caligula's Recusatio Imperii" Historia 34 (1985) 497-503 
  • Keaveney, A.; Madden, J.A. "The Crimen Maiestatis under Caligula: the evidence of Dio Cassius" Classical Quartely 48.1 (1998) 316-320 
  • Kleijwegt, M. "Caligula as Auctioneer" AClass 39 (1996) 55-66 
  • Kleijwegt, M. "Caligula's 'Triumph' at Baiae" Mnemosyne 47.5 (1994) 652 
  • McGinn, Thomas A.J. "Caligula's Brothel on the Palatine" EMC 17.1 (1998) 95-107 
  • Philipps, E.J. "The Emperor Gaius' Abortive Invasion of Britain" Historia 19 (1970) 369-373 
  • Simpson, Christopher J. "Caligula's Cult. Imitatio Augusti" RBPh 75.1 (1997) 107-112 
  • Strong, S.A. "A Bronze Bust of a Iulio-Claudian Prince (?Caligula) in the Museum of Colchester; with a Note on the Symbolism of the Globe" Journal of Roman Studies 6 (1916) 27-46 
  • Stylow, A.U. "Die Quadranten des Caligula als Propagandamünzen" Chiron 1 (1971) 285-290 
  • Wardle, D. "Caligula and his Wives" Latomus 57.1 (1998) 109-126 
  • Wardle, D. "Caligula and the Client Kings" CQ 42.2 (1992) 437 
  • Wood, Susan "Diva Drusilla Panthea and the Sisters of Caligula" American Journal of Archaeology 99.3 (1995) 457 
  • Woods, D. "Caligula's seashells" Greece & Rome 47.1 (2000) 80-87 
  • Yavetz, Zvi "Caligula, Imperial Madness and Modern Historiography" Klio 78 (1996) 105-129 

  • Sutherland, C.H.V. "The Personality of the Mints Under the Julio-Claudian Emperors." The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 68, No. 1 (1947): 47-63.


Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2005.04.10

Eric R. Varner, Mutilation and Transformation, Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture.   Leiden:  Brill, 2004.  Pp. 340; ill. 215.  ISBN 90-04-13577-4.  $249.00.  


Reviewed by Silke Knippschild, Center for Hellenic Studies (Washington, DC) (knippsch@fas.harvard.edu)
Word count: 2557 words

In his study of Roman imperial portraiture Varner (henceforth V.) investigates the destruction and recycling of images of Roman emperors and members of their family after their condemnation by what was called damnatio memoriae. V. includes a wide range of evidence and provides a particularly useful catalogue as well as numerous illustrations of high quality. That said, the presentation of the study is unfortunately rather sloppy.

The book proceeds directly to the argument. In chapter 1 (pp. 1-20) V. explains issues of damnatio memoriae in the Roman Empire. He points out the parallels between mutilation of portrait and mutilation of corpse, treats the reworking of images, and stresses the important role the phenomenon played in Roman society. Further, he highlights antecedents and similarities in the Ancient Near East, Egypt, Greece and Sicily, as well as in Republican Rome, with extra sections on Marius and Sulla as well as on Antony and Cleopatra VII.

In this part, V. might have examined his sources somewhat more extensively. To specify examples, in the Near Eastern section V. resorts to the mutilation of an Akkadian royal portrait as an early example without considering the fact that the attack on the head apparently took place after the sack of Nineveh in 612 B.C. At that time, the image was more than a thousand years old, and the mutilation should be considered a late example.1 He uses evidence exclusively from Nineveh after 612 B.C. and from Persepolis, in the latter case neither specifying the time of the mutilation nor quoting his sources. This procedure projects a lopsided image, at best. As cause for the mutilation of political images V. resorts to animistic beliefs. One wonders how such beliefs can result in the destruction of a ruler's images in the Near East but apparently have nothing to do with parallel phenomena in the rest of the Mediterranean world. Lastly, V. seems not to be aware that curses against the change or mutilation of objects are frequently inscribed on all sorts of things (e.g. boundary stones and foundation tablets2) throughout the Near East. Such an inscription on a royal statue need not surprise and should certainly not lead to the assumption of a particular "susceptibility of Near Eastern royal images to politically motivated mutilation" (p.12).

Chapter 2 (pp. 21-45), Caligula, Milonia Caesonia and Julia Drusilla, opens up with a few words on the life, reign, and death of the emperor Caligula, his wife Milonia Caesonia, and his daughter Julia Drusilla. In equally short fashion V. goes into the reasons why the succeeding ruler, Claudius, vetoed a formal damnatio memoriae of his late nephew but had a de facto ban on his memory instituted nevertheless. V. proceeds to investigate the physical appearance of Caligula as described in literary sources and represented in coins and sculpture, and includes a discussion of iconography. In the following section on the mutilation and destruction of the emperor's images, he points out that evidence for disfigurement of sculpture is fairly rare, that coins bearing his image were defaced as well, and that the sensory organs of the image were the features most frequently attacked. V. also analyses reworked portraits of Caligula, most of which ended up representing his successor, Claudius. These he divides into two groups, classicizing and veristic images, and explains the difficulties a sculptor would face recutting the heads as well as the political implications of the two stylistic groups. This issue recurs throughout the book. Again, V. refers to the typology of Claudius' likenesses and, if pertinent, uses this evidence to point out vestigial Caligulan elements such as the shape of the curls of the forehead. Reworked images of Caligula turned into Augustus, Tiberius, Titus, an unidentifiable soldier emperor -- probably Claudius Gothicus -- , and a deity.

In the next part of the book, V. addresses pieces of sculpture that were removed from view and thus, ironically, escaped destruction, recycling or reuse as spoils. He remarks upon the excellent state of preservation of some of these images, which suggests storage in a safe location, and on the poor state of others that were disposed of in a more violent fashion intended to denigrate the subject, e.g. by being thrown into the Tiber. As the latter is also a form of destroying an image, I think that a cross-reference in the section on mutilation and destruction would have been in order. In the following section V. lists examples of statues representing Caligula that remained on public display after his death, instances mostly in dynastic groups. Milonia Caesonia's and Julia Drusilla's images were, according to V., destroyed along with Caligula's. In fact, none of their likenesses survives. In a brief conclusion to the chapter V. sums up his findings and notes that the treatment of Caligula's portraits sets patterns which were to remain operative for the following three centuries.

In chapter 3, Nero and Poppaea (pp. 46-85), V. emphasizes the extent and severity of the mutilation of the dead emperor's images, including not only sculpture but also coins and gems. He notes that Nero was the first princeps subjected to a proper damnatio memoriae by senatus consultum. Two of his likenesses seem to have been reworked as private individuals, a rarity among the transformed images of emperors. Others were recut to resemble Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Augustus, Claudius, Galba, Trajan, Antinous, Gallienus, and a Constantinian emperor. V. treats Nero's colossus and its history after Nero's suicide in a separate section. Further, he investigates the reinstitution of Nero's images and their continuing circulation until the fifth century, with interesting spotlights on modern reception since the Renaissance. Poppaea's parallel damnatio is also treated. Concluding the chapter, V. characterizes Nero's damnatio as a turning point in the transformation of imperial portraits.

Chapter 4 (pp. 86-104) is devoted to other Julio-Claudians, treating persons connected with but not necessarily related to the Julio-Claudians as well as members of the dynasty. As opposed to his usual presentation V. divides the chapter into subsections on the specific persons, including their history, damnatio, and rehabilitation if applicable. Sculptural evidence for damnatio is rather scarce in these instances. Also, in several cases identification of the subject is far from certain. The objects of V.'s interest are Julia Maior, Agrippa Postumus, Julia Minor, Agrippina Maior, Nero and Drusus Caesar, Sejanus, Livilla, Valeria Messalina, Arippina Minor, Claudia Octavia, Claudia Antonia, Julia Livilla, Julia Drusilla, Lollia Paulina, Domitia Lepida, and Ptolemy of Mauretania. Chapter 5 (pp. 105-110) treats the year 69. V. adapts his approach to the circumstances of that year by dividing the chapter into subsections on Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. In each he offers a brief overview of the history, damnatio, and, where pertinent, the rehabilitation of the emperor. The chapter is markedly less detailed than its predecessors, thanks, in part, to the scarce material on these ephemeral emperors.

With Chapter 6 (pp. 111-135), devoted to Domitian's damnatio, we return to the structure of chapters 2 and 3. Of particular interest are some little known reliefs in Castel Gandolfo and Anacapri that V. brings to our attention (pp. 113-14). The destruction of some cuirassed statue-torsos is also noteworthy, as statues' bodies were normally retained when the head of the condemned emperor was removed and fitted with the head of his successor (p. 114). Obviously, hatred outweighed economy in these cases. Portraits of Domitian were recut to the likenesses of Trajan, Titus, a Constantinian emperor, Augustus, and an unidentifiable fourth century emperor. V. emphasizes that reworking images of condemned emperors by now had become a well-established practice.

Chapter 7 (pp. 136-155) treats Commodus and his reign. V. highlights a change in the exercise of damnatio. According to him, the recutting of images went largely out of practice, or if images are reworked, the recycling did not take place until many years later. Instances of reuse are a transformation of Commodus into Pupienus (probably) nearly 50 years after the initial ban of memory, and into Licinius (again, probably) more than a hundred years later. Instead of the economic reuse of condemned emperors (recycling), mutilation now became the standard response. V. emphasizes the difficulties in treating Commodus because of his rehabilitation in the reign of Didius Julianus and his deification under Septimius Severus only a few years after his murder. Nevertheless, some examples of mutilated images are extant and support V.'s arguments. Further, V. treats Commodus' sister Lucilla and his wife Crispina. An account of Annia Fundiana Faustina, a cousin of Marcus Aurelius, concludes the chapter.

The Severans, subjects of chapter 8 (pp. 156-199), mark another change in the practice of damnatio. V. states that under their reigns bans on memory were enforced against a great many members of the imperial family or against rival emperors. The historical introduction to the chapter is separated into a general description of the era and an account of the rivals to Septimius Severus. In the following, V. investigates the damnationes of the contestants to the throne, Didius Julianus, Clodius Albinus, and Pescennius Niger. A section on Plautianus, father of Caracalla's wife Plautilla and highly influential during Septimius Severus' reign, follows this but is missing from the table of contents. Accounts of Plautilla and Geta, with individual subdivisions, follow. Somewhat briefer is the description of Caracalla's damnatio. Macrinus and Diadumenianus are treated together, as are Elagabalus and his mother, Julia Soemias, and also Severus Alexander and his mother, Julia Mammaea. In this period, V. sees the acme of damnatio memoriae in terms of the dissemination and excessiveness of the phenomenon.

Chapters 9 and 10 are characterized by generally shorter accounts. In chapter 9 (pp. 200-213) V. investigates the later third century, A.D. 235-285. Maximinus Thrax, Maximus, and Caecilia Paulina open the chapter. In regard to Maximus' wife Caecilia Paulina, V. states simply that no sculptural likenesses of her survive, so they must have been included in the destruction of her husband's images. Further examples of this kind of negative evidence for the destruction of images (e.g. Carinus) follow in the course of this chapter. Pupienus and Balbinus come next, in turn followed by Gordian III, Philip the Arab, Philip Minor and Otacilia Severa. V. continues with Trajan Decius, Herrenius Etruscus, and Hostilian. Trebonius Gallus is next in line. Further emperors treated are Aemilian and his wife Cornelia Supera, a Soldier Emperor, perhaps to be identified with Valerian, the possibly invented North African ruler Celsus, Gallienus, his wife Salonina and his sons Valerian Minor, Saloninus and Marinianus, whose name is notably misspelled in the section's title. Carinus, Carausius, and Allectus conclude the account. In his conclusion V. spotlights the political insecurity and the perpetual changes of power during this era and links them with the conspicuous lack of evidence regarding the destruction of imperial images.

The early fourth century is the subject of chapter 10 (pp. 214-224). The condemned and reinstated Maximian opens this part of the book, followed by Maxentius, whose images were transformed into likenesses of Constantine, such as the famous colossus from the Basilica Nova. Maxentius' wife Galeria Valeria Maximilla and their son Romulus are next, the latter featuring in the section's title without actually appearing in the text. After that V. goes on to Maximinus Daia. Subsequently he treats Diocletian's wife Prisca, her daughter Galeria Valeria, and her son Candidianus. Crispus, eldest son of Constantine, and his stepmother Fausta conclude the chapter. V. identifies a revival of the practice of recycling as the most important feature of this era. Perhaps by way of explaining or justifying the timeframe of his study, V. goes on to pinpoint the general lack of conclusive evidence for the practice of damnatio memoriae starting with the rule of Constantine. He mentions a few notorious incidents such as the so-called Riot of the Statues under Theodosius' reign. In a last paragraph V. finally addresses very briefly the functions of imperial images and damnatio memoriae in Roman society.

The extensive and clearly structured catalogue (pp. 225-288) comes in rather handy. V. lists the altered and mutilated likenesses discussed in the book. He provides museum information, size, material, provenance, pertinent publications, and short descriptions of the works. Also, the spelling is markedly better than in the previous chapters. V.'s system of presenting altered images in the chapter on the emperor the portrait originally resembled takes a little getting used to but is consistent with V.'s approach. Cross-referencing the figures might have been presented more clearly, especially as works do not always appear in the same sequence in the plates as they do in the catalogue, e.g. no. 1.1 is fig. 3, while no. 1.3 is fig. 2 a-b.

The select bibliography (pp. 289-305) is comprehensive and highly useful. The same applies to the index of museums and collections (pp. 307-316). The general index is well structured, wide-ranging, and facilitates the access to the book (pp. 317-333).

A list of illustrations (pp. 335-340) and 215 images complete the book. The numerous illustrations are of generally high quality, show most objects from different perspectives, and are very welcome indeed.

On the positive side, this guide to and compilation of imperial portraits subjected to damnatio memoriae is extremely useful. It compiles and updates preceding scholarship on the subject and presents it in an easily accessible manner.3 Further, V. uses literary sources frequently to highlight the events he investigates, thus providing a deeper insight into the processes involved. He also puts epigraphic, numismatic, and glyptic material to good use. In most cases, V. provides the Latin or Greek texts as well as translations, which is certainly helpful for students or the interested public.

On the downside, the lack of an introduction and a general conclusion is to be lamented. Thus, the reader remains in the dark as to the aim of V.'s study and his insights on a higher level than that of the piecemeal consideration of damnationes of individual emperors. For example, V. fails to put into perspective the general impact of damnatio on Roman society and the extraordinary factors in this particular society that made the ritualization of change rather than continuity possible -- striking in a monarchy, where continuation of rule tends to be emphasized. Of course, this may not have been V.'s intention, which is impossible to judge because an introduction is lacking.

The numerous and creative misspellings are rather astonishing, hamper the reading, and set a bad example. Examples are numerous throughout the entire book -- may it suffice to name the four different spellings of Hatchepsut on a single page (p. 13) or the cut-and-paste garbled sentences as in n. 15 pp. 22-23. Fortunately, this shoddy presentation rarely extends to the subject matter itself. There are exceptions, however. For example, in addition to the section on the precedents of damnatio treated above (particularly pp. 12-14), there is negligence in small details like the appearance of Romulus, son of Maxentius, in a section-title although he does not appear in the text (pp. 215-16). In the case of a head of Domitian found in a well (p. 60), V. fails to consider the fact that the portrait ended up in said well several centuries after the actual damnatio4 -- a minor point, but one that changes the overall picture.

Apart from the abysmal execution in terms of spelling, punctuation, and cut-and-paste garbled sentences, the book is a useful addition to the art historical investigation of damnatio memoriae and a helpful point of reference.

Notes:


1.   For earlier cases cf. for example Shutruk-Nahunte's notorious raid into Mesopotamia in 1158 B.C., during which the Elamite ruler had royal images mutilated and transported to his treasuries in Susa in great number. On many of the looted works of art the inscriptions were erased and replaced with epigraphs of Shutruk-Nahunte. Among the destroyed images were objects that had stood in their places for more than a thousand years. Important examples are the Naram-Sin Stele and the Codex Hammurabi, both now in the Louvre. Cf. e.g. Z. Bahrani, The Graven Image (Philadelphia 2003), a highly relevant work, which Varner seems to be unaware of.
2.   Cf. e.g. I.J. Gelb, Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus (Chicago 1991). The existence of curse-inscriptions is to be expected; however, the actual stipulations of these can be case-specific, cf. Z. Bahrani, Assault and Abduction: the Fate of the Royal Image in the Ancient Near East, Art History 18 (1995), pp. 363-382: pp. 373-375.
3.   Notably, e.g., T. Pékary, Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft (Berlin 1985). M. Bergmann, G. Daltrop, K. Fittschen, and P. Zanker, for example, have presented a wealth of studies on the subject, all of which are easily accessable in V.'s bibliography.
4.   T. Hauschild, Munigua, Vorbericht über die Grabungen in Haus 1 und Haus 6, Kampagne 1982, Madrider Mitteilungen 25 (1984), pp. 158-180: p. 179.



Kevin Herbert, Roman Imperial Coins. Augustus to Hadrian and Antonine Selections, 31 BC-AD 180. The John Max Wulfing Collection in Washington University vol. III. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1996. Pp. xxii + 92, 42 plates. ISBN 0-86516-322-7 (hb), 0-86516-332-4 (pb).

Reviewed by Anthony A. Barrett, University of British Columbia, aab@unixg.ubc.ca.

This volume is the third in a series undertaken by the author to catalogue the ancient coins in Washington University's extensive Wulfing collection. The first two covered the Greek and Roman Republican holdings. This volume represents a complete catalogue of the issues from Augustus down to Hadrian, and a selection from the first two Antonines (the latter restriction was necessary to keep the text to a reasonable length, and complete publication is planned in the future). The catalogue is prefaced by an introduction, and comes with extensive indices. It includes a number of variants not previously published.

One might begin by noting some very happy features. The decision to provide a catalogue of the complete holdings (with the single restriction noted above) was a sound one, and even more laudable was the decision to provide an illustration, on good-quality plates, of every piece catalogued. This does mean that the arrangement of the plates on the page is, at times, a little illogical, to make best use of space, but the minimal inconvenience is richly offset by the advantage of completeness. The editor must be applauded also for his broad- mindedness. He has included provincial issues along with the imperials, reflecting the growing recognition of the interest and importance of the former, which until recently have tended to be neglected as merely local emissions. He has also included and illustrated a "Paduan" sestertius (Nero 124, reverse of Ostia Harbour) from the famous class of Renaissance forgeries, clearly identified as such. This is not, of course, a Roman coin and its inclusion may annoy the purists but is fully justified in a catalogue intended in part for students, who should be made familiar with these dangerous replicas.

Herbert begins with a fourteen page introduction. Since this covers some two hundred years it must, by necessity, be brief and make some generalizations that are bound to offend somebody (such as the bold assertion that the population of Trajan's empire was 52 million [p. xvi]). It is no serious discredit to him that I should draw attention to a few questionable details. Herbert assumes that defacement of a coin represents wrath against the emperor depicted on it (p. ix). That may well be the case, but the situation is probably much more complex. One can cite numerous examples of coins with images of such relatively benign figures as Augustus and Agrippa defaced by the chisel. The disfigurement may, in fact, on occasion represent some form of monetary management rather than a political statement.1 Also, the silver drachm minted in Cappadocia (no. 170) in AD 32-4 in honour of Drusus, son of Tiberius, a decade or so after the young man's death, need occasion no great surprise- memorial issues are far from rare, and the coin can surely have nothing to do with the dubious revelation made after Sejanus' fall in 31 that Drusus had been a victim of the ambitious prefect (p.ix). But these are relatively minor points. The only general criticism of the introduction concerns the section on provincials. Some definition of provincial coinage would have been very useful for the non-expert, especially since "imperial" coins are confusingly sometimes minted in provinces (like Cappadocia). It would also have helped to provide some account of the relationship of the imperial to the provincial mints, and the probable purpose and validity of the latter. Instead, the space is used up by information on the history and amenities of the minting towns, with material from the Blue Guide and such details as the influence of the Maison Carrée at Nimes on the Virginia State Capitol, all interesting, but not especially helpful for the task at hand.

The introduction is followed by a generally useful bibliography and list of abbreviations. Herbert should perhaps have made clear that the second edition of the fundamental RIC (1984) is really a replacement of, rather than a revised edition of, the first (1923). Also, for beginners, some explanation of the arrows (die axes) and the figures (weight in grammes) preceding the descriptions might have helped.

The layout of the catalogue proper has a distinguished pedigree in the American Numismatic Society practice. The obverse is described first, then the reverse, then numismatic and bibliographic information. It is only at the beginning of this last section, before the axis and weight, that the item is numbered, with the number set at the far left of the page. Some, including this reviewer, find the system rather confusing, and the casual consultant must avoid the tendency to assume that an entry begins at the point of the numbering and thus embraces the description of what is, in fact, the next coin. This problem is compounded by the occasional typographical error where the Obv/Rev symbols have got out of place (e.g., no. 151).

Discussions in catalogue descriptions must be kept to a minimum, although Herbert is not consistent in this regard. The famous "Agrippa as" he attributes without elaboration to Caligula (nos. 199-201), possibly correctly, but it could have been noted that the coin is much debated and that its attribution is far from certain.2 By contrast, he engages in a lengthy and necessarily inconclusive discussion of the identity of the temple and figures on Tiberius' "Temple" sestertius of AD 36-7 (no. 160).

As in the introduction there are bound to be places in the catalogue where the editor will not convince everyone. The bare head with the legend "Britannikos Kaisar" on the otherwise unattested Alexandrian diobol (no. 238) must surely be that of Britannicus, not Claudius. The latter is always laureate on Alexandrian issues. Moreover, although Claudius was entitled to the honorific of "Britannicus" he never used it, preferring to reserve it for his son. Also, I question Herbert's assertion that the aquila between the infantry standards on the Galban denarius (no. 344) symbolized the military power that would determine the future. But only one comment might be seriously misleading to the non-experts, the suggestion (on Claudius, no. 213) that the low value bronze quadrans would have reached "the greatest number" of buyers and sellers. In fact the frequency of finds and the die evidence suggest surprisingly that the quadrans had a very low and severely restricted mintage. Its value as a propaganda piece might rather have been that, as the finds indicate, it reached the limited but targeted populations of central Italy and certain frontier armies, groups the emperor would especially have wanted to win over.3

Such isolated and inevitable quibbles should not be allowed to create a false impression. Historians, students and, indeed, anyone with a general interest in numismatics will be grateful for this excellent volume, and will find it, along with its two earlier companions, an engaging and invaluable work of reference.


NOTES

1. H. Zehnacker, "La trouvaille de La Villeneuve-au-Chatelot (Aube)", Trésors monetaires 6 (1984), 9-92 reports a hoard of 1184 coins, a mixture of Gallic and Roman, Republican and Imperial. Some 90% of them, including coins of Nemausus depicting Augustus and Agrippa, are disfigured by a chisel, usually with an X on the face. It is noteworthy that the Republican pieces are also disfigured. A fit of pique on this scale would have been an expensive proposition! J.P. Giard, "Le trésor de Port-Haliguen", RN 9 (1967), 119-139 cites examples of the image of Augustus on "altar of Lyons types" damaged by a chisel. J. LeGall, BSNAF (1981), 351, reports coins of Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius damaged by the chisel, along with undamaged coins of Nero!

2. H. Kuethmann, "Die Praegzeit der Agrippa Asse", SMzB 4 (1954), 73 (Tiberius); C.M. Kraay, Die Muenzfunde von Vondonissa (Basel, 1962), 35 (Tiberius to Nero); S. Jameson, "The Date of the Asses of M. Agrippa", NC (1966), 95-124 (Tiberius to Claudius); H. Chantraine, Novaesium III (Limes Forschungenen Bd. 8, Berlin 1969) (Caligula); J. Nicols, "The Chronology and Significance of the M. Agrippa asses", ANSMusN 19 (1974), 65-86 (Caligula to Claudius), cf. W. Trillmich, "Zur Muenzpraegung des Caligulas von Caesaraugusta", MDAI(M) 14 (1973), 151-73.

3. R. Reece, Coinage in Roman Britain (London, 1987), 28-30. 

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2003.12.06

Alois Winterling, Caligula, eine Biographie.   Munich:  C.H. Beck, 2003.  Pp. 205.  ISBN 3-406-50206-7.  EUR 19.90.  


Reviewed by Donna W. Hurley (dwh19@columbia.edu)
Word count: 2019 words

As Alois Winterling (hereafter W.) notes in the postscript to his Caligula, eine Biographie, a lay audience is fascinated by mad emperors; it is scholars who have difficulty dealing with them.1 Judging from the amount of work that Gaius' scant four years as emperor have inspired, the phenomenon of his personality continues to demand explanation.2 W. describes a Gaius of sound mind, one who exposes the hypocrisy abroad in contemporary Rome and anticipates the future course of the principate. He explains how this behavior precipitated the charge of madness and the nasty reputation that became attached to him. Behind the stories told after his death (recentibus odiis compositae, Tac. Ann. 1.1) lay Gaius' monumental clash with the aristocracy, the class ultimately responsible for the tradition that was transmitted about him. This biography, divided into five sections with introduction, conclusion and postscript, makes its points clearly and efficiently as it works through the course of Gaius' life. Endnotes are presented in summary form, evidently to keep the flow of the text from being interrupted for the non-specialist reader. An index and a brief bibliography follow. W.'s contributions to an understanding of the Caligula tradition are emphasized in the description of the book's contents that follows here.

The first section, "Childhood and Youth" (I), in addition to retelling what we know about the early life of "Little Boots" includes a concise and helpful description of the world into which Gaius was born, the Augustan principate with its charade of power-sharing that was intended to mask the reality of one-man rule. It also includes a description of the world in which he grew up, the increasingly tension-filled reign of Tiberius, who lacked Augustus' conciliatory skills and as a consequence drew hatred down upon himself while still alive. The praetorian prefect Sejanus' involvement in the perennial succession problem brought about the destruction of the widow and two sons of Germanicus before he was himself recognized as a threat and destroyed as well. Only then did Gaius become a player in imperial politics. Tiberius summoned him to Capri, where he served as a kind of hostage, kept there not because Tiberius esteemed him particularly but in order that he not be used as a focus for the ambitions of others. W. points out that it was a difficult and dangerous position for this last surviving son of Germanicus.

"The Two-Year Princeps" (II) deals with the positive aspects of Gaius' reign. W. (along with our sources) assigns his good behavior to the years before his overt clash with the senate that took place in 39. Gaius acted out a reprise of the "Augustan principate"; he chose civilitas, displayed pietas to his family, refused many honors, and maintained outward respect for the senate. W. refers this conservative behavior to the influence of his praetorian prefect Macro and to Gaius' first father-in-law, M. Junius Silanus. Gaius' illness at the end of 37 provoked a crisis. While he was offstage, these two mentors promoted Tiberius Gemellus as a possible alternative. When he recovered, both were forced to suicide. Otherwise, Gaius' allies in the first years of his reign were his three sisters and his brother-in-law, M. Aemilius Lepidus, to whom he had married his middle sister Drusilla. Her death in 38 left Lepidus' prospects hanging, reopened the question of the succession and sowed the seeds of trouble to come. In these "good years" Gaius was already displaying a trait that W. considers central to his character: his rejection of rhetoric and refusal to tolerate "doublespeak" ("doppelbödige Kommunikation", 70), the practice of saying one thing and meaning another. W. identifies the first instance of this trait in connection with Gaius' serious illness. One man took an oath of devotio, promising his life for the emperor's, and another, a knight, promised to fight in the arena if Gaius lived. Instead of accepting these vows as flattery, he took the men at their word and called in their pledges. In the meantime, he was irritating the senate with his display of wealth. Material display was the last area left to the upper classes of Rome in which they could compete; the emperor's overwhelming extravagance left all far behind.

"The Escalation of the Conflict" (III) sets forth W.'s central thesis: Gaius tore the mask of hypocrisy from the princeps-senate relationship. The turning point came early in 39 when Gaius delivered an angry speech to the senate. W. thinks that the confrontation was triggered by a conspiracy that our sources, the product of the upper classes, did not choose to record because it did not succeed. In it he exposed the "Doppelbödigkeit" (W.'s signature word for his thesis) of his relationship with the aristocracy, the smoke and mirrors that attempted to disguise the fact that power lay in the hands of one man. This speech marked an end to Gaius' "Augustan principate" and initiated open hostility -- on his part. The senate reacted with flattery; it had no alternative. Troubles multiplied after his marriage to Caesonia in 39. She quickly presented him with a child, and this further marginalized Lepidus and Gaius' two remaining sisters. W. names Lepidus as the head of the serious conspiracy that took place later that year, another conspiracy that is reported only sketchily, again because it failed. According to W., Gaius did not know that Lepidus was its ringleader until after he had rid himself of Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus, in charge of the legions of Upper Germany. After military maneuvers in Germany and a feint at invading Britain, Gaius returned to Rome with extreme distrust for the senate. He had already announced that he would refuse any honors it bestowed on him since acceptance would have acknowledged its right to do so. As a result, he staged a self-styled triumph on the Bay of Naples, building a bridge of boats across the bay in order to "cross the sea", a reenactment of the conquest of Britain that he claimed had been achieved. W. dates this display to 40, not to the summer of 39, where Dio records it (59.17). This later date both explains the elaborateness of the display and fits the allegation that the assemblage of boats caused famine, a famine that may have occurred in the winter of 40-41, not earlier (Dio 59.17.2; Sen. Dial. 10.18.5-6). "Five Months' Monarchy" (IV) describes the short time between Gaius' return to Rome in August of 40 and his death in January of 41. His relationship with the senate was abysmal. Worse, he allowed himself to be saluted as a god. W. sees Gaius' acceptance of this unacceptable homage as a further example of his rejection of rhetoric. As with the vow of devotio at the time of his illness, he refused to acknowledge that the offer of divine honors was a form of flattery (as Augustus evidently had) but chose to take the words literally. There is no evidence that Gaius really believed himself to be a god. He merely used the idea to his advantage. W. believes that he truly intended to relocate the seat of government to Alexandria because he could live there with his divine status more comfortably.

W. describes Gaius' murder in "Death on the Palatine" (V) and notes that -- unlike in the case of the failed conspiracies -- our upper-class sources were eager to describe a successful outcome. But he does not believe that the group of senators who claimed complicity in the plot after the fact were involved in any way; they had been burned too many times to try again. It was the freedman Callistus who set events in motion. Claudius would punish everyone visibly connected with the plot, but Callistus survived to serve him. W. sees this as evidence that he was the one behind the assassination. The praetorian tribunes Cassius Chaerea and Cornelius Sabinus were Callistus' agents, moved to commit murder for the personal reasons that our texts report: They hated Gaius because he had insulted them.

In a concluding chapter, "The Fiction of the Mad Emperor", W. notes that Suetonius was the first to ascribe mental illness (valetudo mentis) to Gaius (Calig. 51.1). Tacitus' turbida mens (Agr. 13.2) and Pliny's and Seneca's furor and insania (NH 36.113; Dial. 5.21.5) are more descriptive than diagnostic. Suetonius was able to make the judgment that he did because at the time when he wrote, during the reigns of Trajan or Hadrian, accommodation between senate and princeps had become codified, and it could be assumed that an emperor who abandoned the charade of "Doppelbödigkeit" and openly played the monarch was insane. Gaius became accepted as the type for a mad emperor (Commodus) but was also a model for the monarchs of the fourth century, although this resemblance was not acknowledged and probably not recognized. W.'s Gaius has something in common with the Gaius whom Otto Willrich described in 1903: His refusal to participate in doublespeak anticipated the time when Rome would be the seat of an unapologetic monarchy. Willrich attributed Gaius' foresight to wisdom.

This biography offers a coherent and self-consistent interpretation of the Caligula phenomenon. Its cohesion comes from W.'s contention that Gaius called the bluff of the senate by exposing the hypocrisy inherent in the principate, and it is around this thesis that he develops his explanation of the young emperor's behavior. It is certainly true that a fiction lay at the center of the principate. Duplicitous speech is, for instance, acknowledged in Pliny's Panegyricus to Trajan (3.4), and recent scholarship has been interested in examining the tension that this produced.3 According to W., Gaius refused to tolerate the misuse of words. This is an instructive and helpful way of thinking about the source of the hostility between emperor and the aristocracy that the Caligula tradition describes. We may question, however, whether Gaius, shocked into recognition in early 39 and urged on by his personal integrity, really embarked on an intentional course of unmasking hypocrisy. A less generous assessment of his character might describe the same behavior as a failure of tact stemming from ignorance and bad temper. W. sometimes seems close to blessing Gaius with the virtue of integrity; he does, however, acknowledge that arrogance and self-centeredness played a part. Whatever the reason for his challenge to the senate, Gaius charted a disastrous course for himself since "Doppelbödigkeit " proved the glue that held the principate together.

In the course of making his case, W. offers a number of interesting explanations based on close examination of the texts. His description of Gaius' difficult position with Tiberius on Capri is convincing, and his dating of the bridge of boats across the Bay of Naples to AD 40 is worth considering, although a good argument can be made for Dio's dating of 39 as well.4 He rationalizes Gaius' bordello on the Palatine by pointing out that Dio writes that Gaius had moved the families of prominent men to quarters nearby and kept them there as pledges for the loyalty of their husbands and fathers. From this came the story of a brothel staffed by noble women. On the other hand, a rumor about procuring could plausibly arise about any emperor who was lascivious or thought to be so. W. does not always take sufficient account of historiographical clichés and sometimes seems too accepting of the literary tradition as factual truth. And not all information needs to be taken so seriously. Gaius' intention of making his horse consul may have been, as W. suggests, an attempt to insult the senate. It can as easily have been a witticism arising from his obsession with horse racing.

W. vigorously insists that Gaius was not a madman, as do most other recent interpreters of his reign.5 It is thus ironic that the Gaius whom he describes seems, although probably not a candidate for the attentions of a medical professional, a seriously impaired personality who asks to be called mad in lay parlance. His Gaius is an arrogant and stubbornly intransigent young man who recklessly burned his bridges and was sufficiently out of touch with reality to fail to understand the consequences of his self-indulgent behavior.

Notes:


1.   Citing C. Edwards' review of A. A. Barrett's Caligula: the Corruption of Power (New Haven 1989) in CR n.s. 41 (1991) 407.
2.   Other recent biographies in addition to Barrett's: R. Auguet, Caligula ou le pouvoir à vingt ans (Paris 1984), D. Nouy, Caligula (Paris, 1986), A. Ferrill, Caligula, Emperor of Rome (London 1991). Earlier attempts: L. Quidde, Caligula, eine Studie über römischen Cäsarenwahnsinn, (1894), H. Willrich, "Caligula" in Klio 3, 85-118, 288-317, 397-430, J. P. V. D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius (Caligula) (Oxford 1934).
3.   S. Bartsch, Actors in the Audience. Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian (Cambridge 1994); S. E. Hoffer, The Anxieties of Pliny the Younger (Atlanta 1999).
4.   Alternatively, the display may then have celebrated the submission of the Parthian ruler Artabanus, the first military success of Gaius' reign. The agreement that ended this conflict took place on a bridge over the Euphrates, and a son of Artabanus rode in Gaius' the parade across the Bay of Naples. Gaius' ersatz triumph could recall these details. It would then have taken place before his journey north.
5.   Ferrill is an exception. 

Anthony A. Barrett, Caligula: The Corruption of Power. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd., 1989. Pp. 334. ISBN 0-7134-5987-3.

Reviewed by Arther Ferrill, University of Washington.

This biography of Caligula is written in essentially the same spirit as the earlier one by Balsdon. Barrett regards Caligula as a sane, intelligent ruler and attempts to rationalize his actions. Suetonius and Dio are dismissed as biased, and Barrett sees no need to take their judgments of Caligula seriously. In my own forthcoming book on Caligula (Thames & Hudson, Spring 1991) I challenge this twentieth century view of the Emperor and argue that Caligula was simply crazy. Since I set forth my opinions of those matters at some length in my book, I shall say no more here.

One might legitimately ask, however, how Barrett's book compares with Balsdon's. It is much better. Balsdon refused to call Caligula by his popular name, preferring to use Gaius, since Caligula did not like his nickname. Barrett, on the other hand, notes that Caligula did not like Gaius either. Although Barrett rationalizes Caligula's behavior, he does not do so as relentlessly as Balsdon did and is more judicious in his conclusions, especially about Caligula's deification. Balsdon virtually suppressed some of the worst stories about the Emperor, but Barrett finds a place for most of them at various points in his narrative.

Barrett excels at treating the archaeological evidence for the reign of Caligula. He includes detailed discussions of the palace, the Gaianum, and the bridge at the Bay of Naples. Barrett also deals with the numismatic evidence with expertise. Sadly, the fact remains that there really is no significant new evidence about the reign of Caligula since the publication of Balsdon's book more than fifty years ago. Present biographies must be based largely on a re-examination of what Balsdon and his contemporaries knew in the first part of this century. A few bits and pieces of new material, mainly epigraphical and archaeological, permit minor corrections of detail, b


This Website is
powered by MyEvent.com
Click Here 7 Day Free Trial