Suetonius’ Life of Caligula

Ancient historians are, as a whole, problematic. Their methods of recording history differ completely from the approach of modern historians, favouring shock value and the advancement of their desired narrative over accuracy and attempts to write an impartial account. One historian who is a perfect example of this is Suetonius. In his Life of Caligula he is so obviously following a story line instead the facts, and even more problematic is how he switches the story half way through the account. In book ten he is described as a well liked and self controlled boy to being a monster who delights in cruelty. This shift is so huge that he even states that he will no longer be discussing Caligula the emperor, but instead Caligula the monster. While the idea of a person changing their personality over time is not a ridiculous notion, the way that it is written by Suetonius suggests that this new part of the narrative was just added in when the general populace’s opinions changed. Until books eleven and twelve Caligula is seen positively, these two sections are slid in and their negative accounts are ultimately ignored until book twenty two when the tone of the text shifts so dramatically. The dramatic alteration in perspective also occurs with Tiberius, who at first is seen as a monster but later not quite as terrible. The only imperial family member who is consistently written one way is Germanicus, and his early death can be thanked for this.

The most dramatic contradictions Suetonius writes are all on topics that are meant to shock the reader or colour his view sharply on Caligula. His statement that Piso was condemned to death by the senate is false, as he killed himself before the trial was over. He was said to be so loved by the army that the mere sight of him would calm them, later Suetonius denies any kind of favour from them. Certain restrictions were placed on sex workers under his reign, yet he is said to have committed incest with one of his sisters and prostituted the others. Firstly Suetonius claims that Caligula is a generous emperor but later says that he left the people to starve. He condemns informers then rewards them. First he is handsome, then he is not. Contradiction after contradiction pile up creating not just an inaccurate account but one with a disjointed stance on the subject matter, that being Caligula.

While he only mentions Caesonia briefly, she is still an interesting example of the ancient Roman depiction of witches, an example that is useable regardless of the issues that the author creates in his account. Suetonius is problematic not only because he is inaccurate, or because he has a story that he wishes to tell and shapes the facts around this. The descriptions of ancient witches can allow for these problems. He is mainly problematic because it cannot be ascertained whether he is depicting her like this because it fits with contemporary depictions of witches that he is trying to link her to, or because it fits in his narrative of Caligula as a madman. She is described doing many things that are typical of witches of this period, such as love magic and poisoning/potions which drive Caligula to madness. However, this is also not an uncommon theme for accounts of unpopular emperors. Claudius is described as being controlled by his wives, and even poisoned by Agrippina. So the actions that Caesonia takes cannot be viewed as strictly witch-like until the language Caligula uses to describe her are examined. He says that he does not understand why he loves her so passionately. This, coupled with the use of poison used not to kill him but to seduce him, seems to determine that Suetonius’ Life of Caligula can be used as a source for the depictions of witches in the ancient Roman world.

Sources:

Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Book 4 and 8.