The current 'Afghan war' has only been going on so long, nigh on 30 years, because of, first, the Soviet Union's and latterly the US and NATO's involvement. Let us be blunt, whether we in the West like it or not, the Taliban will eventually take back the country and it will be then up to the Afghani people to decide whether they are willing to tolerate that or not. Another Vietnam it is not but it bears all the hallmarks of the that earlier conflict; a conflict, for all of its esteemed firepower and technology, the US is doomed ultimately to lose.
One of the side effects of the sustained, and dare I say sustainable, peace in Europe is that it has given historians probably the most open view of history, uncoloured as it is now with victors and vanquished, overlord and serf, conquerors and conquered, than at any time in European history. (See here for a fictional exploration of the perennial dilemma) A growing belief in the scientific method and the subsequent reliance on primary sources rather than anecdotal evidence, wishful thinking or myth, has, I think, led to a certain gullibility; not with current historians, although, as with scientists, one must always bear in mind that any discipline is a product of its age, but rather that the rigours of the discipline now are taken for granted as though they were true of any work in the past that is deemed 'history'.
I was reminded of this by one of my occasional forays into the BBC dramatisation of the two Robert Graves novels, 'I. Claudius' and 'Claudius the God', and especially John Hurt's excellent performance as the 'mad and bad' Emperor Caligula, although nothing can match Derek Jacobi's performance as the club-footed, stammering, tic-laden show-stopper that is Claudius. Despite its lack of location filming,and special effects and the obvious 'theatricality' of the production, it remains, even after nearly fifty years, one the most exquisite jewels in the crown of terrestrial television.
Graves' novels are 'faction'. a largely fictional story, albeit an informed one, woven around real events from the time of Augustus' usurping of sole power after the Battle of Actium, and the collapse of the second Triumvirate*, to the time of Claudius' death in 54AD. One of the sources for Graves' novels is the only semi-complete work (the first few chapters are missing) of Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, known as Suetonius to later historians, entitled 'De Vita Caesarum', usually translated as 'The (lives of the) twelve Caesars'**. These are potted biographies of the first twelve emperors of the Imperium from Augustus to Domitian.*** It is generally considered that Suetonius wrote his book (8 scrolls) in the reign of the Emperor Hadrian.
Suetonius is the predominant source for information about the life and 'Caesarship' of Caligula and his 'mad and bad' reputation largely stems from 'De Vita Caesarum'. However, I have had my suspicions about exactly how objective Suetonius was about, not just Caligula but about the whole Julio-Claudian dynasty, for a long time. As 'Keeper of the Archives' to the Emperor Hadrian****, he had access to to the imperial archives and he seems to make use of them, certainly in the case of Augustus. However, at the time of writing 'De Vita Caesarum', probably around 115-120AD, he would have little or no access to any personal recollections and, what details he garnered regarding Caligula's private predilections could just as easily be simply malicious gossip; imperial dynasties in the Roman Empire were very adept at 'rubbishing' their predecessors and the Flavian dynasty (Vespasian, Titus and Domitian) do come in between the Julio-Claudian dynasty and Suetonius' period and were no doubt as adept as any other, especially given the circumstances of Vespasian's ascension to power on the shoulders of the legions in Syria and Egypt after the debacle of Nero's reign (and those of Galba, Otho and Vitellius who were too busy fighting amongst themselves to do any good for the Empire).
Suetonius neatly prepares us for Caligula's reign as madman by having him as a frequent visitor to his great-uncle Tiberius' palace and Caligula's great-uncle is portrayed as a debauched, old lecher, content to spend the last years of his life not really ruling the Empire but pleasuring himself with young boys in his palace on the Isle of Capri.***** Little wonder that Caligula (who Suetonius invariably calls by his real name, Gaius, Caligula was a nickname******) turns outs to be even worse than Suetonius thinks Tiberius was.
However, the first years of Caligula's reign appear to be those of comparative sanity and moderate success. He restored many from the exile in to which Tiberius had sent them, outlawed treason trials, published the public accounts, opened up democratic elections to high office once more and provided a fund to assist those who had lost property in the many fires that were a regular occurrence in the Rome of the period.******* It is true that he gave every impression of wanting to expand the powers of the Emperor but in this he was scarcely alone amongst Roman emperors.
Perhaps, he did indeed go mad, as opposed to being mad on his ascension, and perhaps he was as eccentric and debauched as popular stories tell. Perhaps he did threaten to make his horse a consul but he did not have to be mad to do so; it could just as easily have been to insult the senate, my horse could so a better job than you senators. Perhaps he really did have incestuous relations with his sisters; it would not have required madness to do so and was scarcely unknown in Royal houses before the Romans. All that is required is 'absolute power' and Alistair Crowley's famous dictum: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." As to declaring himself a God while still alive, this too was not unknown in ancient times and Augustus had already been made a God after death; why not before?
While I have no evidence to suggest that Suetonius was merely spreading salacious gossip masquerading as 'history', I am more inclined to believe that these were simply the actions of a young man thrust into a position of immense power without the maturity and experience to temper the excesses of youth.
No doubt, he was doing something wrong, at least in the eyes of some Romans, otherwise he would not have been assassinated but mad? I find the case, as they say in Scotland, not proven.********
* The name literally means 'three powers'. They were the individuals who effectively ruled the Roman Republic with (or more probably without) the Senate after Julius Caesar's acquisition of power and subsequent death by assassination in 44BC. The second Triumvirate composed Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, Gaius Octavius (Octavian, later known as - the first Emperor - Augustus) and Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony, lover of Cleopatra VI).
** Suetonius also wrote, the now lost, 'The Lives of Famous Whores'; he always tried to be inclusive! Despite an exhaustive search, (!) I am unable to find a citation which is not in English; it was probably something like 'De Vita Meretricium celebrium'.
*** They are: Julius Caesar (the first few chapters are missing), Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero,(the Julio-Claudian dynasty) Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, (the year of the four emperors), Titus and Domitian (sons of Vespasian). The sequence, until the time of Suetonius, continues with Nerva, Trajan (famous for his column) and Hadrian (famous for his wall).
**** Suetonius appears to have been dismissed from the job on account of his affair with the emperor's wife, Viba Sabina; not that Hadrian was too concerned, he was almost certainly gay, (investigate the 'cult of Antinous') but it was a major principle at stake here; refrain from inserting the beef bayonet that is not the Emperor's into the Emperor's wife.
***** There is a, possibly apocryphal, story of how Tiberius would bathe naked (as most Romans did, whether in company or alone) and have his 'little fishes', young boys, swim under him and nibble his scrotum! Not so very debauched; people now do the same thing with their feet and real fishes! (Don't believe me? Look here)
****** For the sake of completeness, I will give the derivation, although the story is well known. Gaius spent a lot of his time on the Rhine with his father Germanicus, Claudius' brother, and he had a miniature legionnaire's 'uniform' complete with galea (helmet), lorica segmentata (armour) and caligae (heavy-soled boot-like sandals). He was named Caligula, 'little boots' by his father's troops.
******* Rome actually had its own fire brigade, set up by Augustus, 'Vigiles Urbani' (the watchmen of the city), who doubled up as policeman when they were not putting out fires. They even had 'fire engines', 'siphones'; large horse-drawn hand pumps. Here is a little picture of a reconstruction:
******** Scots law provides for three verdicts, as opposed to the two normally found in western democracies. 'Guilty', 'Not Guilty' and 'Not Proven'; trust the Scots to hedge their bets! 'Not Proven' is sometimes called the 'bastard verdict' (following the quote of Sir Walter Scott, the novelist) or 'Guilty but don't do it again!'
No comments:
Post a Comment