Review: The Legion by Simon Scarrow

"The Legion" is the second book by Simon Scarrow I have read although it is the tenth in Scarrow's "Under the Eagle" series.  I admit I have not read its immediate predecessor "Gladiator" but I had no problem picking up the story line with the background information provided.

The other Scarrow book I read was Centurion and in it, Cato and Macro were both Centurions.  From reading other reviews, I gather that in previous novels, Macro has been the experienced teacher and Cato the young up-and-coming protégé.  In this book the relationship has changed significantly and Cato now holds the superior rank of prefect.

The two heroes are in pursuit of a nasty former gladiator named Ajax who led a slave revolt on Crete following an earthquake and tsunami.

Historically, there have been only three major Roman slave revolts documented by ancient historians - two on the island of Sicily and the famous revolt led on the Italian mainland by a Thracian slave turned gladiator named Spartacus.  Scarrow may have used these revolts to  inform his fictional narrative of a similar revolt on Crete.  Appian mentions a conflict on Crete at about the same time as the Spartacan revolt (a century before the reign of Claudius which is the time frame Scarrow uses for his "Under the Eagle" series) but I could not find anything definitive pointing to a slave uprising on Crete at the time or in a later period.

Scarrow may have pulled his villain from the first Sicilian revolt, though, that occurred on the island of Sicily from 136 - 132 BCE.  It was led by a Syrian slave named Eunus, whose reputation included an aptitude for magic and foretelling the future.  Diodorus Siculus tells us:

"...he not only gave oracles by means of dreams, but even made a pretence of having waking visions of the gods and of hearing the future from their own lips.

Of his many improvisations some by chance turned out true, and since those which failed to do so were left unchallenged, while those that were fulfilled attracted attention, his reputation advanced apace. Finally, through some device, while in a state of divine possession, he would produce fire and flame from his mouth, and thus rave oracularly about things to come.

For he would place fire, and fuel to maintain it, in a nut -- or something similar -- that was pierced on both sides; then, placing it in his mouth and blowing on it, he kindled now sparks, and now a flame. Prior to the revolt he used to say that the Syrian goddess appeared to him, saying that he should be king, and he repeated this, not only to others, but even to his own master." - Diodorus Siculus, Library, Books 34/35. 2. 1-48  

Apparently, Eunus, also called Antiochus, was not taken seriously at first and was used as entertainment at dinner parties.  But his ruthlessness was soon revealed when he was asked to lead 400 slaves against the city of Enna where his men "found their way into the houses shedding much blood, sparing not even suckling babes."

As Eunus' victories over the Romans grew more numerous, thousands of slaves flocked to his banner, much like Spartacus.  Eunus was eventually crowned king by the rebels and among those appointed to his royal council was an Achaean (Greek) who was known for his intelligence and military acumen.  Perhaps it was this Achaen that provided the model for Scarrow's rebel leader, Ajax.

Roman War Galleys were frequent subjects of Pompeii frescoes 1st century CE.
Photographed at the Museo Archaeologico in Naples, Italy by Mary Harrsch.

However, in Scarrow's novel, Ajax and his men, instead of meeting their end on the island as Eunus and Achaeus' men did, have hijacked a Roman ship and are sailing around the Mediterranean wreaking havoc, slaughtering most of the people they encounter and leaving only lone survivors here and there that have been so badly tortured they usually expire shortly after telling their rescuers that they were slaughtered by a Roman named Macro.  Of course this infuriates Macro and raises the stakes as it becomes apparent Ajax is heading for Egypt.

Arriving in Alexandria, Cato and Macro are hauled off to prison and must convince the governor of Ajax's ruse before the governor crucifies Macro.  Fortunately for Macro, one tortured survivor, an Egyptian priest, convinces the governor that Macro was not the man who butchered his fellow priests.  So the governor releases Cato and Macro and they set off in pursuit of Ajax once again with the recovered priest as guide.
But Ajax continues to elude them, slipping through one trap after the next, until the governor interrupts their chase and orders the pair to the Egyptian frontier to help fend off an invading Nubian army.  When Macro and Cato arrive, the governor's commander is acting strangely and our two heroes discover Ajax has joined the Nubians.  Now they must find a way to defeat the Nubians to end Ajax's reign of terror.

Scarrow has crafted a well-paced plot but like "Centurion", I found the characterizations of Cato and Macro quite thin.  I thought carefully about what was missing in the narrative that made the protagonists seem so flat and I realized Scarrow never gives us any insight into their thoughts.  He relates their actions but it's like viewing their activities through binoculars without any insight to what they are thinking.

I thought back on Harry Sidebottom's novels and his protagonist, the Anglo-Saxon born Roman officer, Ballista.  We hear Ballista praying to his "All Father, Death Bringer".  We experience the horror of one of his nightmarish visions of the Emperor Maximinus Thrax who always promises to see Ballista again at Aqualeia where Ballista originally broke his oath and assassinated the brutish emperor.  Dr. Sidebottom describes each character's body language, the complex emotions reflected on their faces and the way members of Ballista's familia banter with each other, filled with recollections of past battles, mistakes and triumphs as well as an understanding of each others fears.

The only indication of the depth of friendship between Cato and Macro in "The Legion" occurs when Macro touches the shoulder of his friend with concern when Cato has been wounded after a skirmish with Ajax.   I was actually appalled by a scene where an individual who has fought beside Cato and Macro is suspected of being an "embedded" spy and Cato and Macro coldly decide to crucify him in the morning without even listening to his side of the story.  Talk about cold and unfeeling!

I also did not feel immersed in the culture or geography of Egypt, the novel's setting, either.  Cato and Macro could have been in any desert.  I felt no sense of being there like I have when reading Sidebottom's books or those by Conn Iggulden (I just finished "Conqueror", a retelling of the ascension of Kublai Khan to the throne of the Mongol Empire).  I know both Sidebottom and Iggulden have traveled extensively to the locations described in their books and the realism they impart when describing the settings is palpable. Sidebottom also has a doctorate in ancient history from Oxford that is reflected in the depth of information he provides about each of Ballista's surroundings and opponents as he battles his way across the Near East of the third century.   What little information Scarrow gives about the Nubians, Cato and Macro's final opponents is sparse at best.

Mosaic Pavement Depicting a Nile Scene from the Maccarani vineyard 

area of the Aventine Hill Roman 2nd century CE. Photographed at the 

Palazzo Massimo by Mary Harrsch. 

Also, at one point in Scarrow's story Cato and Macro chase Ajax into the treacherous marshes of the Egyptian delta and during the pursuit, they hear something swishing past them in the water.  Macro explains it is probably a crocodile but demonstrates no real depth of fear that should have been generated by a close encounter with a ferocious creature depicted in Roman Nilotic mosaics and well known for ripping less fortunate creatures apart in Roman arenas.  It is passages like this that blunt the tension in the narrative.  If Scarrow had one of his protagonists relate a memory of seeing such a beast wreaking devastation during a numachia or something, it would have elevated the tension during the hunt and brought significantly more impact to the novel's conclusion.

I checked out Scarrow's website and he shares it with his brother Alex.  I see Alex has a time travel series with the latest installment being "TimeRiders: The Gates of Rome".  I love time travel stories so I'll have to check it out.  It will be interesting to see if the two brothers differ in their writing styles.

Related articles

• A Review of Tribune of Rome (Vespasian #1) by Robert Fabbri

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Review: Caligula by Douglas Jackson

Several months ago when I began reading "Claudius" by Douglas Jackson, I didn't realize that it was actually the sequel to "Caligula".  Finding "Claudius" well researched with vibrant characters and taut action, I resolved to read "Caligula" as well.

"Caligula" fleshed out the backstory for Rufus, the young animal trainer who eventually became the emperor's elephant handler.  Rufus is the central character in "Caligula", just as he was in "Claudius" and we experience the reign of the emperor Caligula as reflected in the interactions he has with Rufus and with those Rufus holds dear including Fronto, a procuror of beasts for the Roman games who purchases Rufus from a kindly baker, a rebellious gladiator named Cupido who becomes Rufus' best friend, the gladiator's beautiful sister and a diminutive woman chosen by the emperor to be Rufus' wife.

In the opening prologue, Jackson portrays Caligula as an already psychologically disturbed child who tortures little animals as he seeks to learn the limits of physical brutality.   To the best of my knowledge, this is not documented in any ancient sources but it is effective to prepare the reader for some of the scenes of brutality that will follow as the scope of Caligula's brutaliy only increases with the power he acquires as the successor to the dour emperor Tiberius.

Lion and Leopard Mosaic Detail from 

the House of Doves Pompeii Roman

1st century CE photographed by

Mary Harrsch.

As the novel begins, we learn Rufus was initially sold into slavery by his own father, a former Spanish auxiliary who fails miserably at trying to scratch a living out of a plot of land in North African given to him as part of his discharge compensation from the Roman Army.  Fortunately for Rufus, he is purchased by a kindly Roman baker who teaches him the trade.  But Rufus' real calling is made clear one day when he saves a young girl from a rampaging beast who has escaped from the holding pens of one of the arenas where beast hunts are held to entertain the Roman mob.  His courage in confronting the animal is noticed by Fronto, a procuror and trainer of beasts, who offers to teach Rufus the arts of his trade.  The baker agrees to sell Rufus to Fronto and Rufus' career as an animal trainer begins.

Fronto is a hard task master and Rufus learns some very painful lessons (that, as an animal lover, I found difficult to read).  But Rufus is gifted, both in understanding the nature of the animals he is asked to develop and in recognizing business opportunities in the ever shifting world of the Roman public's imagination.  His gifts do not go unnoticed, however, and soon Fronto, who is childless and had planned to adopt Rufus, is forced to sell him to the new emperor, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, known behind his back as "Little Boots" (Caligula).

Jackson portrays the mature Caligula as someone who appears to be not openly maniacal but definitely psychologically unstable.  Rufus finds him at times friendly and genuinely interested in the people and events around him.  But these brief periods of lucidity can vanish without warning and then Rufus finds Caligula as dangerous as any beast he has ever faced in the arena.  I think this is a far more realistic portrayal than many past efforts who have presented Caligula as evil incarnate.  My blog post, "Sexual innuendo and character assasination in the ancient world", explains my reasoning on this point.

Jackson does a wonderful job of weaving actual events detailed by Suetonius in his biography of Caligula into the narrative including the construction of a bridge from the Palatine Hill across the forum to the Capitoline which I was unaware of until I read Caligula's biography.  Unfortunately, Fronto's grisly fate is also based on an actual incident detailed by Suetonius as well.  See "The Twelve Caesars" by Suetonius, "The Life of Caligula", Section 27, p449.

Erotic fresco from Pompeii displayed

 in "The Secret Room" in the Museo 

Archaeologico di Napoli in Naples, Italy. 

Photo by Mary Harrsch.

We also gain insight into the perverse nature of Caligula's sister Druscilla, who summons Rufus to her private chambers, dubbing him her "puppy dog".  Rufus has heard the rumors of an incestuous relationship between Druscilla and her brother and must now fear Caligula's jealous wrath if he discovers Rufus' unwanted nocturnal liaison .

Rufus also learns how everyone in the imperial court becomes players in the "game of thrones" as he is alternately threatened and cajoled by Narcissus, the freedman of Gaius' uncle Claudius, who deftly weaves a web of deceit to entrap any who may become an obstacle to his master's ultimate ascension to the purple.

Through Rufus, Jackson gives us a balanced look at life during the reign of Caligula without resorting to Hollywood-esque over-the-top scenes of licentiousness and bestiality. Jackson clearly illustrates the sense of helplessness, though, that so many slaves in the empire endured when under the control of ruthless and unscrupulous masters.   This helplessness, however, may be frustrating for some readers.

Last year I attended a media arts conference and at a presentation on screenwriting, Sara and Gregory Bernstein emphasized that a compelling protagonist should always be a person who is in control or has the capability to control the events in the plotline.  Rufus, as an imperial slave, however, has absolutely no control over his life or ultimately the lives of most of the significant people in his life.  This may be the reason Jackson's publisher asked Jackson to shift gears a little and develop a totally different character for the  books planned after the publication of "Claudius" even though Jackson's "emperor" series was initially announced as a trilogy and was well received.  (I must point out, though, this is just speculation on my part. )

I do think "Caligula" and "Claudius" vividly demonstrate the high caliber of Jackson's skill as a storyteller and I look forward to reading about the exploits of his new "Hero of Rome",  Tribune Gaius Valerius Verrens. Verrens, commander of the veteran legions at Colonia, must face one of Roman Britain's fiercest rebel leaders, Boudicca of the Iceni.  Judging from the title of the book, he must emerge victorious.  That definitely sounds like a protagonist that can handle whatever a plotline can throw at him.

Related articles:

Blogosphere ~ The Madness of the Emperor Caligula (rogueclassicism.com)

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Augustus or Julius Caesar? Ostia head another puzzle

Lately, I've been working on images I took of the Roman remains of the ancient port of Ostia.  I went to the official website of the archaeological site of Ostia to look through their images to help me identify some of the sculptures I photographed there and stumbled across an image of a head labeled as Augustus:

The notes accompanying the image says it was found on the Street of the Vigiles, the firefighters and watchmen of the city.  I realize Augustus is credited with establishing the vigiles in 6 CE after levying a 4% tax on the sale of slaves to fund the new force.  But this portrait head looks more like heads I have seen of Julius Caesar rather than Augustus.  I realize the damage to the frontal part of the forehead makes it difficult to determine the hairline but the hair appears much more sparse and combed forward rather than Augustus' thick locks almost always depicted in a slightly longer, more casual style:

Augustus as Pontifex Maximus photographed
at the Palazzo Massimo in Rome by Mary Harrsch.

I wish I knew if there was any accompanying epigraphic evidence discovered with the head.

I also noticed a portrait head of Hadrian found in a lime kiln:

Head of the Emperor Hadrian found in a lime kiln
 in the Caseggiato del Serapide in Ostia.

It pains me to think of all of the exquisite sculpture that was unceremoniously rendered down to make plaster in the Middle Ages.  What a tragic loss to our cultural heritage!

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Identifying Ancient Art - A game of smoke and mirrors?

History resource article by Mary Harrsch © 2012

Today, I watched a fascinating lecture "Mistaken Identities: How to identify a Roman emperor" by Mary Beard recently delivered at Stanford University.  As a "fan" of Julius Caesar, I thought her critique of a number of heads identified as Caesar over the years was very enlightening.

I also found her overall discussion of the rather tenuous nature of sculpture identification particularly interesting because lately, I have been re-editing a number of images I shot of Roman sculpture at the Capitoline and National Museums in Rome back in 2005.  I had just started my crusade to photograph historical art and make my images freely available to teachers, researchers and students and had not yet developed my current practice of photographing the identification placards in a sequence with the sculpture to enable me to properly identify the artwork once I returned home to my office.  So, on that first trip to Rome, I ended up with dozens of photographs that all I could say for sure were portraits of Roman men or women until I had a chance to research them further to label them properly.

With the internet and our current technology, I naively believed that proper identification would be a relatively straightforward process.  I have since learned that not only is it not straightforward, even what is thought to be accurate identification at the time changes as different scholars apply different interpretations or museums reliant on governmental support become subject to various political agendas seeking some kind of historical confirmation through a culture's art legacy.

It gets even more confusing when identification displayed at a museum differs from the museum's own collections catalog. I recently received a request from a publisher in Denmark for an image I took back in 2007 of a fresco at the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples that, at the time, was labeled "Cleopatra greets the god of the Underworld'.  But, when I looked the image up in the collections book that I purchased at the museum, I noticed that it said it was Io being welcomed upon her arrival to Egypt by the goddess Isis to her sanctuary of Canopos.  The fresco was unearthed in 1764 in the Temple of Isis in Pompeii in a room dubbed the Ekklesiasterion.

The satyr-looking creature bearing up Io looks like it could be Hades but the catalog says it is a river god.  Io is identified by the vestiges of horns she still retains from her time as a heifer.  Isis appears to be dressed in the Greek fashion and holds a cobra coiled around her arm.  The catalog tells us that the painting originated from the court of the Ptolemies in Alexandria "in order to legitimize their dynasty by rooting it in ancient Heraclean and Argive origins which embraced the dual ethnic components of the new kingdom, the Egyptian and the Macedonian".  The fresco is thus dated to the the early Ptolemaic dynasty after a 3rd century BCE prototype .  This all sounds quite carefully researched and definitive.  However, there is no mention of technical dating examinations so I must assume this is educated conjecture.  The only thing that nags at me is the prominent display of the cobra and the knowledge that the fresco was apparently once thought to represent Cleopatra VII in the role of Isis.

In the historical record, Cleopatra VII represented herself as the living embodiment of Isis and the cobra was known to be not only a sacred creature but a pharaonic symbol.  When I check the "king's list" of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, I find a few females mentioned as co-rulers, usually regents for under-age male inheritors, beginning with Cleopatra II Philometora Soteira in 131 BCE, but you really don't find a woman ruling with the trappings of pharaoh until you reach Cleopatra VII in 51 BCE.  So the possibility that Cleopatra VII as Isis is the welcoming figure in the fresco cannot be totally dismissed.  I also can't help but think the widespread publicity surrounding Cleopatra and her death by the bite of a cobra in the 1st century BCE could easily have influenced a Roman artist charged with decorating the walls of a temple to Isis in Pompeii during that period.

Another confusing identification I encountered recently was a picture of a sculpture said to be Apollo of the Anzio type at the Capitoline Museum:

Call me crazy but it looks like remnants of grapes and grape leaves in the hair which would make me think it was Dionysos.  Many sculptures of Apollo also have an iconic knot in the hair on top of the head so I am baffled by the identification associated with this piece.

Reviewing my images from the Hall of Emperors in the Capitoline Museum, I came across the following bust:

After reviewing hundreds of images of Roman emperors (or said to be Roman emperors), I cannot find a single one that looks like him.  He appears to be wearing a laurel crown and in 2005 was positioned close to the busts of  Vespasian, Domitian and Titus (based on the photo time stamp).  This would make me think he may have been one of the emperors in the Year of the Four Emperors after the assassination of Nero but I checked images of Otho, Galba and Vitellius and he doesn't resemble any images identified as them.  Although I thought the museum positioned busts in relationship to the sequence of their reigns, this may not be the case either.  So, I would appreciate any information anyone could offer that would help identify this Roman.  

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Sexual innuendo and character assassination in the ancient world

Portrait of Caligula. Photographed at theGetty Villa in Malibu, California by Mary Harrsch.    

Whenever I review a novel set in the ancient world I always read up on the history behind the novel before I prepare my review of the work.  I just finished reading "Caligula", a novel by Douglas Jackson, and I remembered that years ago I had picked up a slim "history" text entitled "Caligula Devine Carnage: Atrocities of the Roman Emperors" by Stephen Barber and Jeremy Reed. So I thought I would begin my research with it.  Fortunately, for me, the reign of Caligula was covered in Chapter 1 of Barber and Reed's little tome so I didn't have to slog through any more sewage than was absolutely necessary.

The foreward in this historical travesty, subtitled "Orgy of Death" proclaims:

"Ever since the cinematic holocaust of Tinto Brass' blood-splattered porno epic Caligula in 1980, connoisseurs of visceral history have thirsted for more information and details on the pleasuredomes and necrodromes of Ancient Rome.  Yet the true glories of the Roman Empire - the slaughter, the sexual depravity, the insanity - were virtually impossible to glean from the handful of arid, academic texts available.  Finally, here is a book which counts - a book which pointedly eschews the mind-numbing minutiae of politico-military history and instead brings the glorious, often shocking decadence of Ancient Rome to bloody, pulsating life. "
"Here are the incredible cruelties, vices and vanities of emperors such as Caligula and Claudius [see Chapter One], Nero [see Chapter Four], Commodus [see Chapter Three] and Heliogabalus [see Chapter Four] in uncensored and vivid relief.", James Havoc, Caligula Divine Carnage: Atrocities of the Roman Emperors.

In my opinion, I have never read such trash pawned off as history in my entire life! Perhaps I'm just not a "connoisseur of visceral history!"  For those of you thirsting for more details on the slaughter and depravity of the Roman Empire, however, I can share some choice morsels.


Did you know that early in his reign, Caligula supposedly had a lavish amphitheater built where he and Drusilla fornicated publicly for the mob's enjoyment? Well, neither did I.   Just to be sure I haven't become senile in my retirement, though, I double checked Suetonius' bio of Caligula, one of the few ancient sources still available on the topic and probably the most salacious of the bunch.  Suetonius, despite the fact that Pliny the Elder claims he was a serious, studious type, seemed to enjoy inserting sexual entendres in his discourse and was not above embellishing his accounts with delicious details that he could not have possibly known - especially considering that he wrote his biography of Caligula almost 80 years after Caligula's reign.

In p441 of Thayer's translation, Suetonius begins with a general undocumented statement that Caligula engaged in incestuous relations with his sisters (a common slur between Roman political rivals) then it reads " and at a large banquet he placed each of them in turn below him, while his wife reclined above."

Roman couch and footstool with bone carvings and glass inlays
 possibly from the villa of co-emperor Lucius Verus 161-169 CE.
Photographed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art by Mary Harrsch.

In modern terms this sounds like he was having a public "threesome" with them, although a banquet would hardly qualify as an amphitheater seating thousands of leering spectators.   However, good scholars consider the context of the period and realize that it could have been merely a criticism of the reclining arrangements on the dining couches since Roman society was tightly controlled by rank and position. Thayer's translation is also a bit awkward which doesn't help. But using the word reclining in the passage, especially since the activity is stated to have taken place at a banquet, makes me think that Suetonius is trying to make a rather ludicrous play on words to infer a sexual liaison from a situation where one did not really exist.

Barber and Reed also claim Drusilla, Caligula's sister and rumored paramour, actually died from too much fornication rather than a fever.  Even Suetonius doesn't go that far.

Barber and Reed go on to describe a wild orgy aboard the famous Nemi ships that ended with the sexually sated participants being burned alive when the ships were set ablaze in the conclusion of an orgiastic spectacle that Caligula conceived in his demented mind. That's funny. If the ships were set ablaze how were they recovered intact from the lake bed by Mussolini just before WWII? Maybe Barber and Reed got their timing all mixed up when he read about the ships being burned by the Nazis as they retreated from Italy?

Historical photo of Caligula's "Nemi" ships courtesy of Joe Geranio.

The climax of chapter one (if you'll excuse the pun) described how Caligula planned his own assassination to be staged in front of the crowd in a gold and silver appointed amphitheater. In the center of the arena Caligula placed a golden altar and when Cassius Chaerea struck off Caligula's head it was so artfully done that his head bounced perfectly up onto the altar just as Caligula had planned it!

I can't believe that when you Google Stephen Barber he is hailed as an "award-winning" writer. Whoever wrote the reviews for his book about Caligula (or should I say chapter)  either knew absolutely nothing about history or never read the book at all.

Sadly, I guess that happens a lot. I read an article written by a woman trying to convince people that they could make a living writing reviews based on book dust covers and, considering a number of reviews I have read on line, apparently there are a number of people doing precisely that!
Of course Barber included no footnotes.  In his book where the bibliography should have been he gives us a general statement about his sources:

"This account is drawn from contemporary sources, biographies, manuals, polemics and newly-excavated documents (notably the "Butrinte Caligula"), as well as from works of the following centuries, from the golden era of Roman scholarship in Germany in the 1900s-1910s, and - least usefully by a wide margin - from recent biographies of Caligula and Commodus.  All material of every kind written on the Roman era, whatever its date of composition, reflects the structures and gaps and limitations of its time, and it would require the most omniscient oracle to say definitely what was authentic." - Stephen  Barber, Caligula Divine Carnage: Atrocities of the Roman Emperors

This certainly sounds like a cop out to me.

But, how reliable are even the ancient sources covering the reigns of Caligula and his predecessor Tiberius?  What political motivations could have influenced their sources?  I pose this last question because our most complete source on Caligula is Suetonius who was at one time an imperial secretary for Hadrian, decades after the actual reign of Caligula.  Therefore Suetonius had to have relied upon much earlier sources.

Some scholars have speculated that this earlier source material may have included a significant amount of political propaganda put forward by the power base that brought the emperor Claudius to the throne.  Caligula was actually popular with the Roman mob who probably needed to be assuaged after his assassination. I would take this suggestion a step further and speculate that not only was the material about Caligula politically manipulated but that even the end of Tiberius' reign suffered collateral damage in an effort to lay the groundwork for Caligula's reputed maniacle behavior.

The emperor Tiberius wearing the
Corona Civica.  Photographed at the
Museo Archaeologico Nazionale di Napoli
 in Naples, Italy by Mary Harrsch

Tiberius, through most of his reign, demonstrated that he was a competent administrator and militarily gifted general.  His serious demeanor did not endear him to the Roman populace, unlike Germanicus, and, apparently, he was not well-liked by Augustus and ended up as successor simply because there was nobody else left in the line of succession.  He seemed to be a reluctant ruler  who disliked the mud-wrestling nature of Roman politics and after the particularly nasty business of Germanicus' suspicious death and the subsequent suicide of the suspected assassin procurer, Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (who it is reported was about to implicate Tiberius), Tiberius retreated to the island of Capri and left Sejanus in charge.

One thing I have realized over the years as I have studied ancient Rome is that the basic nature of humankind, despite all of the technological advances, has not really changed.  As social creatures, we become suspicious of individuals who separate themselves from the community and attempt to live an isolated existence.  The ancient Romans were no different.  Rumors spread that Tiberius must have been involved in unnatural activities on his island retreat and these rumors blossomed into tales of sexual depravity reported many years later by Suetonius.  But were these stories simply a result of purient speculation or an orchestrated effort by Claudian propagandists to point out how unworthy Caligula was as Tiberius' successor?

Most of the stories revolved around pederasty, detailing how Tiberius imported children and young men to satisfy his sexual appetites.  This included having the youngsters swim around in the palace's pools, nibbling on Tiberius.   Hence, the reference to his little "minnows", of which Caligula was one (although Caligula was not a child but a young man of 19 when he was asked to join Tiberius on Capri after the deaths of Livia and Octavia).

But what was the actual Roman attitude toward pederasty?

"Preeminent among Roman biases was a conviction that Greeks were excessively self-indulgent and inordinately fond of a life of luxury.  One might, then, have expected Roman writers to make use of pederasty as a major weapon in their assault against Greek cultural traditions, but they quite noticeably fail to do so.  And while we might conjecture that the influence of Greek culture encouraged an increased tolerance of pederastic relationships, ancient writers themselves give us little reason to do so, for they most often associate the influence of Hellenism with an increased tolerance of traditionally discouraged heterosexual practices, such as the poetic celebration of adulterous affairs or a luxurious overindulgence in female prostitutes.  In fact, the verb graeccari ("to act like a Greek") and its compounds, far from suggesting pederasty, evoke a hedonistic indulgence in food, drink and love, often in the company of female prostitutes; Festus for example, defines pergraecari as "being devoted to banquets and drinking-parties."  Likewise, in one after another condemnation of Greek decadence we hear not of pederasty but of a general levitas, hedonism or luxuriousness."  - Roman homosexuality by Craig Arthur Williams

Historically, gender or age of a sexual partner was considered irrelevant if the dominant sexual partner was Roman, especially if the submissive partner was a slave.  Procured participants would fall into that category.
However, Rome's martial society frowned upon a freeborn Roman male assuming a submissive role in any sexual encounter, hence, the implication that Caligula had done so would be, by far, the most scandalous part of the stories recorded as part of Tiberius' bio.

If Caligula, Tiberius' adopted heir, was involved in these aquatic escapades, Tiberius would only be viewed by traditionalists as violating an ancient custom that forbade the co-mingling of a father and son in the baths.

"According to Plutarch, Cato observed that his son's presence encouraged him to speak as decently as if he were in the presence of Vestal Virgins, and indeed he refused to bathe with his son.  Plutarch adds that this corresponded to an old Roman tradition: even fathers-in-law avoided bathing with their sons-in law. " - Roman homosexuality by Craig Arthur Williams

So the scandalous issue was not Tiberius' involvement in pederasty, if it even took place, but that he may have bathed with his adopted son.

"The resistance to nudity among traditionalist Romans (apparently an uphill battle) was not connected to questions of acceptable or unacceptable sexual desires but rather to more general questions of decent behavior among Roman citizens." - Roman homosexuality by Craig Arthur Williams

But according to Tacitus, Tiberius was so traditionally proper that he issued a written reprimand in 29 CE chastening the young Caligula for "love affairs with young men and unchastity not in accordance with ancestral traditions" shortly after Tiberius' mother Livia died - less than 8 years before Tiberius himself died.  As there was no reported episodes of stroke or illness in connection with Tiberius, how could such a traditionalist degenerate in such a short time into an individual who sexually frolicked with children in the baths?

Mosaic in bath complex in Herculaneum.
Photographed by Mary Harrsch

Furthermore, Suetonius himself says Caligula could not swim so if Caligula had been involved in water "sports", it would have had to have been in shallow water. Caligula was also said to have suffered from "the falling sickness," like Julii before him, so it would have been imprudent for Tiberius to risk his heir by exposing Caligula to the potential hazard of a seizure in the water.

When you read Suetonius, you must also stop and ask yourself, how did he know (or his sources know) about activities going on in the emperor's private apartments?  Ancient historians and philosophers existed on the patronage of emperors and other ultra-wealthy citizens.  Unlike today's yellow journalists, they would not take the risk of interviewing body servants of the imperial family to get the latest gossip.  They would not even consider interrogating imperial slaves (if they wanted to keep a luxurious roof over their heads and food on the table).  So, I tend to dismiss details of sexual adventures that supposedly occurred behind closed doors since  there would always be a big question mark as to how such information was acquired and it was a common ploy in elite Roman society to use sexual innuendo to damage the dignitas of a political rival.

I place more credance, however, in descriptions of behavior that were observed at public gatherings.  In the case of Caligula, it was not his private sexual behavior that is most disturbing, but his public brutality that is far more appalling and I have little doubt that the brutality he suffered in his formative years as his family was decimated (I use this word in the modern sense not the literal ancient sense) by power politics produced a man capable of extreme brutality himself.

"He forced parents to attend the executions of their sons, sending a litter for one man who pleaded ill health, and inviting another to dinner immediately after witnessing the death, and trying to rouse him to gaiety and jesting by a great show of affability. He had the manager of his gladiatorial shows and beast-baitings beaten with chains in his presence for several successive days, and would not kill him until he was disgusted at the stench of his putrefied brain. He burned a writer of Atellan farces alive in the middle of the arena of the amphitheatre, because of a humorous line of double meaning. When a Roman knight on being thrown to the wild beasts loudly protested his innocence, he took him out, cut off his tongue, and put him back again." - Suetonius, The Life of Caligula from The Lives of the Caesars

Much is made of Suetonius' reports that Caligula often selected sexual partners from his dinner guests then reported back to their husbands about the unfortunate woman's performance.  I would not be surprised if these charges were true.  However, Caligula is not the first powerful Roman to use sex to demean those who may be viewed as political rivals.  Julius Caesar was notorious for seducing the wives of his political opponents, although he was far more clandestine about it than Caligula, preferring his opponents to appear to be so politically impotent that they could be cuckolded by a rival.

Detail from "Romans of the Decadence" by Thomas Couture, 1847 CE.
Photographed at the Musee d'Orsay in Paris, France by Mary Harrsch.

Caligula's behavior seems consistent with the "I'll show you" attitude that Caligula apparently possessed.  Caligula used overt demonstrations of his unlimited power throughout his brief 3 1/2 year reign, such as the building of the bridge across the Bay of Naples, to convince the Roman populace and, in my opinion, even himself, that he could do whatever he could imagine and he appeared to have a very fertile imagination.  Did this confirm that he was clinically insane?  No, I don't think so.  I think it is just an example of absolute power corrupting absolutely.   I just know I wouldn't want to be a member of his imperial court.

Whenever I read an account of a Roman who is described as "way out there", I also ask myself about later motivations of those involved in the transcription of ancient source documents as well as ancient authors.  I find it interesting that the colorful and demeaning biography of Caligula by Suetonius has come down to us almost totally intact while almost the entire section of Tacitus' Annals dealing with Caligula's reign, with the exception of a few derogatory statements, has been "lost".  Most ancient manuscripts were copied and recopied over the centuries by monks who belonged to a religion that had its own axes to grind.  When Christianity became the state religion after the reign of Constantine, pagans were actively persecuted and the Roman elite during the predominately pagan period of Roman history were vilified in efforts to convert remaining pagans to monotheism. See Persecution of Pagans by the Christian Roman Empire.

Having watched the ever-popular History Channel series "The History of Sex", I also can't help but wonder about those lewd illustrations found in the margins of medieval manuscripts and consider the possibility that the same apparently sexually-deprived individuals that were copying the ancient texts may have inserted some of their own fantasies in the process.  Unfortunately, it's something we probably will never know unless we discover something other than philosophy in the remaining charred papyri from the Villa dei Papyri in Herculaneum.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!