"Calígula, no tan malo en realidad", Guillermo Altares, El País 16.01.2021: https://elpais.com/cultura/2021-01-15/caligula-no-tan-malo-en-realidad.html

The author did a great job keeping a complicated time in history simple and clear to follow. It was a weighted narrative, giving possible alternative reasons for actions. Even if the alternatives were in favor, or against, Caligula. The author also didn't dwell on, amplify, or glorify any of the more salacious details and rumors about Caligula; he also doesn't romanticize him.

I found the parts about what was built that still stands, and in some cases are still used, today interesting. That is part of Caligula's legacy we don't usually hear about.

The last chapters is where I had a couple of concerns: The political comparisons to current politicians I am not even going to address. It was too easy. The diagnosis he offered wasn't as bad as it could be as he compared symptoms but did not actually offer a "this is the mental illness" finality. ( )

Caligula: The Mad Emperor of Rome is a sleek, focused account of events as we’ve been handed, running from the Rhine Revolt of 14 AD up to Caligula’s assassination in 41, followed by quick overviews of what came after with Claudius and Nero. Dando-Collins sets out to question whether the image we’ve been given of the depraved third Emperor of Rome is really a justified one, and whether it is or not, how it continues to shock and inform our lives even today.

My hat’s off to the author for even picking the subject to begin with. This era is one of the most controversial and trying to weed impartial facts out of the biased hyperbole in our late sources is a pretty thankless task. The rare archaeological find can push back small bits of darkness and doubt—and Dando-Collins luckily has some of these to work with like the newly uncovered cryptoporticus where Caligula died—but when it comes to guessing true character and intent? It’s all a matter of subjective interpretation, with little chance of consensus about what the “truth” is.

HANDLING THE SOURCES

Dando-Collins's plan to handle the sources carefully without just dismissing them as completely useless is, I feel, a good one. And with this in mind, he tightly marshals the events and sources, such as they are, into an entertaining, fast-paced narrative. The majority of speculation and analysis is saved for after Caligula becomes emperor, when the more stunning accusations come into play.

This tight focus, however, can sometimes work against the book. While there are some attempts to clear away the decadent mythology around Caligula, the other important people are rarely given the same benefit of the doubt, even when the actions described are from the more sensational sources. Tiberius is one of the major examples here with the sexual depravities assigned to him by Suetonius stated as if they aren’t the subject of heated dispute.

Obviously, to expect Dando-Collins to list each accusation and why he found it believable or not would be madness, to say nothing of tedious. However, this and many other examples throughout the text are areas behind which I'd have been very interested to know the author’s reasoning. What is it about these things claims in particular that strike him as credible? Is there some other record that makes it believable when so much else from the same sources is questioned? Is it just a feeling?

Whatever the conclusion was, I would have liked to know more about his thinking process and without it I felt I was only getting a small fraction of the whole story. Sure, Caligula is the focus, but these are people who impacted him in so many different ways and shaped his life so powerfully. Trying to clarify the possible distortions cast on them would not only add more flesh, but could only help when tackling Caligula himself.

METHOD OR MADNESS?

In the places where there is exploration, Dando-Collins convincingly argues method over madness. The practical explanation given for Caligula’s infamous ride across the Bay of Puteoli, for example, goes against the image of a vanity project undertaken to support the divine delusions of a vain madman. Likewise, his troubled attempts to launch a campaign against Britain culminating in his “war on the sea” are given rational possibilities. I was also fascinated to learn about the projects commonly ascribed to Claudius that were actually begun by Caligula in his effort to leave a legacy of progress and innovation and many other things I hadn’t known.

On the other hand, there are times where allegations from sources that are questioned elsewhere are passed over with little or no explanation, as mentioned above. Again, I don't expect Dando-Collins to give an explanation for each accusation and I don't doubt some of it is true. I just would have liked to know why certain parts of the records struck him as less subject to hyperbole than others.

Mercifully, in all of this there’s no effort to recast Caligula as a maligned champion of the Roman people against the corrupt elite. His paranoia and cruelty are never denied. Dando-Collins does explore more deeply the question of whether he was insane or merely corrupted by power in the second-to-last chapter, and after giving briefly summarizing and dismissing some of the theories, lands conclusively on one in particular. Whether you agree with it or not is obviously going to depend on your point of view.

Overall, I feel I did come out with a better image of Caligula and his foibles.

THE LAST CHAPTER

The chapter tucked away at the very end goes over Caligula's journalistic relationship to Trump, and whether the claims made are fair to either person.

I can't say I was looking forward to this chapter. Every author and text is subject to their own context in time and space, none can truly escape that. While understanding that, however, I'm personally pretty picky about modern references in biographies of the past. Sometimes they're useful and can illuminate the subject for a modern audience. Labeling Germanicus and Agrippina as the JFK & Jackie or Harry & Meghan Markle of their day, for instance, instantly conveys the impact they had on Roman society. Other times, the comparison IS the subject, which can illuminate our present as well as our past.

As it is, this particular example delivers a fast analysis listing point-by-point similarities and differences observed between the two men. Here and there I encountered an interesting tidbit (the on-going symbolism of the handshake into the modern era, for instance), but the chapter inevitably ends in the safe and predictable consignment of the matter to time.

Unfortunately, one of the dangers of tackling a subject like this is also that it’s an ongoing one that's evolving even as we speak, and that tends to speed up the process by which a work becomes dated. With neither subject really earning anything new out of it, it feels to be the case here.

In the end, a chapter that discussed Caligula's enduring legacy on our world and culture overall might have been more interesting, as opposed to a brief, inconclusive summary of the journalistic branding of one particular man. But, if the chapter as it is is of little interest to a reader, at least it can be safely skipped by those who'd rather just focus on the main subject without missing anything of the rest of the book. I don’t know that those who are interested, no matter where you stand on the issue, will be satisfied either.

IS IT RECOMMENDED?

Those who are well-versed in the book’s subject matter and who may be looking for a more thorough treatment of not just Caligula but the times he lived in and the people who surrounded him will probably be impatient with this book. I’m not an expert on Rome’s third emperor, but even for me there were parts that I knew weren’t as simple or decided as they were made to seem.

However, it's a fast-paced digestible account of events that I would recommend to those just beginning to dip their toe into Roman history or Caligula and his conflicted legacy. The many ancient sources are brought together to tell a cohesive and entertaining story. However, I'd throw in a word of caution that there are some errors, a lot of stones remain un-turned, and it can be a bit deceptive about what is considered definite or not.

It was a mixed bag, but still, for being my first biography of Caligula, I learned a lot I hadn’t known before.

FINAL RATING: 3.4 stars ( )

"Caligula: The Mad Emperor of Rome", by Stephen Dando-Collins, deals with one of most famous (or infamous) emperors of the ancient Rome, Caligula.
The book starts with the achievements of Caligula's father Germanicus in fighting against the Germanic barbarians on the Rhine, and then follows his career from Rome to Syria, where Germanicus died of poisoning. Caligula, of noble birth, returned with family in Rome and became a prominent part of the court of the emperor Tiberius. Years of intrigues on the court, imprisonment of his family members and deaths of some of it, most likely deeply affected Caligula. In 37 AD, Tiberius anointed Caligula as his successor. After he died, Caligula was proclaimed as emperor by the Roman Senate that year.
At first, Romans celebrated his reign, as they expected "the happiest age of mankind". He rescinded censorship of some banned books, extended public holiday of Saturnalia for the fifth day, authorized completion of the Temple of Augustus and the rebuilding of the Pompey's Theatre, etc. But only in the first year of reign, he contracted a "terrible disease", most likely an influenza, which effected his health greatly. Barely surviving, he changed: "He was now changeable, capricious, and cruel." He ordered killings of several men (including senators), divorce and re-marriage of Driscilla, and was convinced, that he is a god. He ordered that he was to be worshipped as Jupiter himself. Author then deals the events of Caligula's life, when he was preparing for a major military campaign. In 40 AD, he moved to the province of Upper Germany to prepare for war with Germanic tribes. That never happened, as he moved his army to the English Channel with intent of crossing it and conquering the British Isles. But his troops refused to cross the channel; Caligula decided to decimate the rebellious legions and returned to Rome. That year, at least three separate plots to kill him emerged. While two stopped just by words, a military coup inside his Pretorian Guard was more dangerous and the planning lasted into the next year. On 24 January 41, Caligula attended Palatine Games on the Palatine Hill, he was stabbed at first by Cassius Chaerea, a tribune of the Praetorian Guard and then by other soldiers. German Guard then installed Caligula's uncle Claudius as the new emperor. Claudius then rescinded many of Caligula's orders and even commanded the removal of Caligula's name from history. Author then quickly continues with following the life of Claudius and then the next emperor, Nero. In one of the last chapters, he deals with the question if "was Caligula truly mad" and comparison of Caligula with Donald Trump, the current president of the United States.
The book is well written and can be read quickly, with ease, and as such is highly recommended for anyone interested in the history of the ancient Rome. ( )

The USP (unique selling point) of this latest biography of Caligula is the final chapter, which compares the ancient Roman emperor to the current U.S. president--it is a bit of a stretch. The author also conjectures about the signs of a possible bipolar disorder that previous historians described. and he dispels/explains some of the wildest tales in the emperor's brief but cruel reign. There is a lot of military detail here. The most interesting thing I learned concerns the Spintrians, male prostitutes who participated in threesome sex, often with an adult man and a boy, like Tiberius and youthful Caligula. Recommended for fans of Roman history. ( )