BAYOUS: Was something wrong with Caligula's horse?

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18. 2024

Could something be lacking in Us? Was something wrong with the emperor Caligula? Was there anything wrong with his horse?

The famous strongman and his famous steed have been mentioned in recent days, most often by commentators in Blue America. Uniformly, a connection has been drawn to Donald J. Trump's nomination of Matt Gaetz to serve as attorney general.

Caligula has been back in the news! But just who was this famous man, and what was the story with his horse? The leading authority on his life and times starts its lengthy account as shown:

Caligula

Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (31 August 12 - 24 January 41), better known by his nickname Caligula, was Roman emperor from AD 37 until his assassination in AD 41. He was the son of the Roman general Germanicus and Augustus' granddaughter Agrippina the Elder, members of the first ruling family of the Roman Empire. He was born two years before Tiberius was made emperor...

Germanicus died in Antioch in 19, and Agrippina returned with her six children to Rome, where she became entangled in a bitter feud with Emperor Tiberius, who was Germanicus' biological uncle and adoptive father. The conflict eventually led to the destruction of her family, with Caligula as the sole male survivor. In 26, Tiberius withdrew from public life to the island of Capri, and in 31, Caligula joined him there. Tiberius died in 37 and Caligula succeeded him as emperor, at the age of 24.

Of the few surviving sources about Caligula and his four-year reign, most were written by members of the nobility and senate, long after the events they purport to describe. For the early part of his reign, he is said to have been "good, generous, fair and community-spirited" but increasingly self-indulgent, cruel, sadistic, extravagant and sexually perverted thereafter; an insane, murderous tyrant who demanded and received worship as a living god, humiliated his Senate, and planned to make his horse a consul. Most modern commentaries seek to explain Caligula's position, personality and historical context. Many of the allegations against him are dismissed by some historians as misunderstandings, exaggeration, mockery or malicious fantasy.

The word "insane" is already present in the third paragraph of this lengthy report. By modern convention, we're allowed to introduce such concepts into political analyses, but only after thousands of years have passed.

The matter of Caligula's horse is also mentioned in paragraph 3. That said, did Caligula really plan to make his horse a "consul" (a very high-ranking figure)?

Beyond that, was this emperor "insane?" Also, what would that claim even mean?

We can't necessarily answer every question. Concerning the emperor's horse, the authority starts by telling us this:

Public profile

Caligula shared many of the popular passions and enthusiasms of the lower classes and young aristocrats: public spectacles, particularly gladiator contests, chariot and horse racing, the theatre and gambling, but all on a scale with which the nobility could not match. He trained with professional gladiators and staged exceptionally lavish gladiator games, being granted exemption by the senate from the sumptuary laws that limited the number of gladiators to be kept in Rome. He was openly and vocally partisan in his uninhibited support or disapproval of particular charioteers, racing teams, gladiators and actors, shouting encouragement or scorn, sometimes singing along with paid performers or declaiming the actors' lines, and generally behaving as "one of the crowd." 

In gladiator contests, he supported the parmularius type, who fought using small, round shields. In chariot races, he supported the Greens, and personally drove his favorite racehorse, Incitatus ("Speedy") as a member of the Green faction. Most of Rome's aristocracy would have found this an unprecedented, unacceptable indignity for any of their number, let alone their emperor.

It sounds like the emperor was a "populist." Rightly or wrongly, broad comparisons to a certain contemporary figure are already coming to mind.

At any rate, Incitatus ("Speedy") is said to have been the emperor's favorite horse. Quite a bit later, Incitatus gets his own sub-section of this profile, and we return to the scene of the recent comparisons:

Incitatus

[The historians] Suetonius and Dio outline Caligula's supposed proposal to promote his favorite racehorse, Incitatus ("Swift"), to consul, and later, a priest of his own cult. This could have been an extended joke, created by Caligula himself in mockery of the senate. A persistent, popular belief that Caligula actually promoted his horse to consul has become "a byword for the promotion of incompetents," especially in political life. It may have been one of Caligula's many oblique, malicious or darkly humorous insults, mostly directed at the senatorial class...Suetonius, possibly failing to get the joke, presents it as further proof of Caligula's insanity, adding circumstantial details more usually expected of the senatorial nobility, including palaces, servants and golden goblets, and invitations to banquets.

It may have been a type of joke! For the record, Incitatus has his own Wikipedia page, and that page tells us this:

Incitatus

Incitatus (meaning "swift" or "at full gallop") was the favorite horse of Roman Emperor Caligula (r. 37–41 AD). According to legend, Caligula planned to make the horse a consul, although ancient sources are clear that this did not occur. Supposedly, Incitatus had 18 servants for himself, he lived in a marble stable, walked in a harness decorated with rare and special stones/jewels, and dressed in purple (the color of royalty) and ate from an ivory manger.

According to Suetonius, in the Lives of the Twelve Caesars (121 AD), Caligula planned to make Incitatus a consul, and the horse would "invite" dignitaries to dine with him in a house outfitted with servants there to entertain such events. Suetonius also wrote that the horse had a stable of marble, with an ivory manger, purple blankets and a collar of precious stones.

Cassius Dio (165–235 AD) indicated that the horse was attended by servants and was fed oats mixed with gold flake, and that Caligula made the horse a priest.

The accuracy of the received history is generally questioned. Historians such as Anthony A. Barrett suggest that later Roman chroniclers such as Suetonius and Dio Cassius were influenced by the political situation of their own times, when it may have been useful to the current emperors to discredit the earlier Julio-Claudian emperors. Also, the lurid nature of the story added spice to their narratives and won them additional readers.

Then as now, it seems that we the people may have preferred lurid tales, responding to them as to a type of spice. At any rate, modern historians apparently suggest that there was no nomination of the emperor's horse, nor did he become a priest.

Let's return to the profile of Caligula, and to the question of insanity. The leading authority tells us this about the emperor's "mental condition"

Mental condition

There is no reliable evidence of Caligula's mental state at any time in his life. Had he been thought truly insane, his misdeeds would not have been thought his fault: Winterling points out that in Roman law, the insane were not legally responsible for their actions, no matter how extreme. Responsibility for their control and restraint fell on those around them. 

In the course of their narratives, all the primary and contemporary sources give reasons to discredit and ultimately condemn Caligula, for offences against proprieties of class, religion or his role as emperor. "Thus, his acts should be seen from other angles, and the search for 'mad Caligula' abandoned" (Barbara Sidwell). Barrett suggests that from a very early age, with the loss of his father, then of his mother and what remained of his family, Caligula was preoccupied with his own survival. Given near limitless powers to use as he saw fit, he used them to feed his sense of self-importance, "practically devoid of any sense of moral responsibility, a man for whom the tenure of the principate was little more than an opportunity to exercise power" (Barrett). Caligula "clearly had a highly developed sense of the absurd, resulting in a form of humor that was often cruel, sadistic and malicious, and which made its impact essentially by cleverly scoring points over those who were in no position to respond in kind" (Barrett).

Philo saw Caligula's illness of 37 as a form of nervous collapse, a response to the extreme stresses and strains of Imperial rule, for which Caligula was temperamentally ill-equipped. Philo, Josephus and Seneca see Caligula's apparent "insanity" as an underlying personality trait accentuated through self-indulgence and the unlimited exercise of power. Seneca acknowledges that Caligula's promotion to emperor seemed to make him more arrogant, angry and insulting. Several modern sources suggest underlying medical conditions as explanations for some aspects of his behavior and appearance. They include mania, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, encephalitis, meningitis, and epilepsy, the so-called "falling sickness." 

Sidwell seems to believe that Caligula wasn't "insane." On the other hand, the behaviors described in that passage seem to suggest the presence of the types of (serious) "personality disorders" which constitute a major part of this branch of contemporary medical science.

As we noted again last week, something like 5.5% of adult men can be diagnosed as "sociopaths," if you believe in such science. We offer this additional point:

If the authority can be credited, the concept of "insanity" already existed at the time in question. That said, people judged to be insane were not regarded as possessing moral agency:

("Had [Caligula] been thought truly insane, his misdeeds would not have been thought his fault.")

Was "something wrong" with Caligula? Was he somehow "mentally ill?" Or was he simply a type of populist with an unusual sense of humor? 

We can't help you with that! But in the past week, this apocryphal story about the emperor has been cited by some of Blue America's leading pundits, with at least one of Donald J. Trump's recent nominees cast in the role of the horse.

Is Matt Gaetz a reincarnation of Caligula's horse? How about such nominees as Hegseth, Gabbard and Kennedy Jr.?

Can Musk be shoehorned into this picture? Also, is it possible that Donald J. Trump is psychologically challenged ("mentally ill") in some diagnosable way? Or does he simply have a certain sense of humor? 

Regarding the first possibility, public discussion will likely begin at some point around the year 4000. In the present day, Blue America's pundit class will continue to stumble about, looking for acceptable ways to discuss a situation which seems to be truly remarkable from the Blue point of view.

The incoming president has made some unexpected nominations. In the case of Gaetz, the nominee seems to be so absurdly ill-suited that he has been compared to Speedy, the earlier emperor's horse.

Along the way, it's been said that Caligula was insane. Or perhaps he simply became "increasingly self-indulgent, cruel, sadistic, extravagant and sexually perverted," leading him to indulge his great fondness for the gladiator games.

On Saturday night, the winning candidate in this year's election appeared at Madison Square Gaden again—this time, at a jampacked UFC mixed martial arts event. As part of the fealty shown to the populist, a nearly naked gladiator leaped over the top of the UFC cage to offer a tribute to Trump and to his group of high-profile companions.

Professional "wrestlers" are back in vogue on our "cable news" TV shows. So are D-list comedians. 

That's happening in Red America, where a revolt seems to be underway. Over here in Blue America, the limits of human discernment have been on display for many years, often in ways that we the Blues may not be equipped to see or understand.

May their first child be a masculine child! It's a famous sentiment voiced in the famous film, The Godfather. 

Over there in Red America, gender politics straight outta the Iliad are suddenly back in vogue at the top of the winning candidate's inner circle. We'll have more about this striking state of affairs in the days and weeks ahead.

Indeed, madness is back in a hundred ways within our failing discourse. Because there's no obvious American precedent for what is currently happening, Blue America's pundits are having a hard time finding ways to describe it.

We'd say it's straight outta Eyes Wide Shut, but also straight outta Gladiator. That said, how about us in Blue America? What's going on with Us?

More specifically, how did we ever lose to this guy? What might we have done, along the way, to bring this apparently dangerous situation to pass?

This situation is very strange. It seems to us that we need to expand the ways in which we try to comprehend the current situation.

In our view, the current situation in Red America seems to have arrived straight outta Eyes Wide Shut, though also straight outta Caligula. 

That said, where do we Blues come from? Could it be that major shortcomings also exist Over Here? 

Tomorrow: We add to our list of (Blue) bayous