Last month saw the dramatic launch of John Galliano's 2010 fashion collection in an abandoned swimming pool at Paris fashion week.*
One of the key themes of Galliano's new and dramatic collections was his highly stylised portrayal of the French Napoleonic period. Stunning interpretations of early Napoleonic chic, were characterised by finely tailed jackets, Bonapartine hats and sumptuous sashes. All sported by ghost-like, laurel wearing models; dramatically referencing the early image of the diminutive Emperor.
-----------
The notorious Roman Emperor Caligula, also nurtured a distinctive flair for fashion. 
On this point, Suetonius - that most wicked of imperial biographers - noted:
"His apparel not only did not conform to any national or civil fashion: it was not even peculiar to the male sex, or appropriate to mere mortals. He often went abroad clad in a short coat of stout cloth, richly embroidered in many colours, and studded with gems, in a tunic with long sleeves, and wearing bracelets. Sometimes he was seen all in silks and habited like a woman; at other times in the crepidae or buskins; sometimes in the sort of shoes worn by the light armed soldiers, or in the sock used by women and commonly with a golden beard fixed to his chin, holding in his hand a thunderbolt, a trident or a caduceus, marks of distinction belonging to the gods only. Sometime he even appeared in the costume of Venus. He constantly wore the triumphal ornaments, even before his expedition, and sometimes the breastplate of Alexander the Great, taken out of his coffin"
[Suetonius, Life of Caligula, 52]
------------
I think we can rest assured that no one would have laughed at Caligula's garb - at least not to his face.
*(Must suppress obvious quotes from the spoof movie, Zoolander)
Subject: re Caligula post
ReplyDeleteDate: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:00:24 -0700
I tried posting to your blog but got an error message, which sucks because once you have finished writing a post, and you get an error message, it takes all the wind out of your sails.
It went along these lines:
There is a school of thought that Caligula may not have been such a bad guy. The only surviving historical references of him were written by his mortal enemies, the Senatoral class. The same group that killed him. Many times his actions can be misinterpreted. He orders his troops to charge the North Sea, not because he is deranged, but to make fools of those troops for being afraid to sail to England. He makes his horse a senator, not because he is insane and believes his horse is qualified, but because he is mocking the senate. Prostituting senators wives? Hey, if you are Caligula, what better way to insult your enemies than to prostitute their wives!You also have to realize he was worshipped most of his life. At what point if you are worshipped do you begin to act on every whim? He did not have anyone to tell him "no".
Look at two examples of modern worship, not even as people who had the power of life and death or armies. Elvis and Michael Jackson, then think of what zany antics would be attributed to them if only their enemies accounts survived.
Even Claudius, who appears to have run the empire quite well, is regarded as a complete idiot, by the historians, also the same ones who wrote about Caligula.
Having said all this, it does appear something did go tragically wrong with Caligula, especially after his myserious illness. Did he really cut out his sisters baby? Ouch!
But, if you had a chance to hang out with Suetonius or Caligula, who would you hang out with? Sorry Dude! I'm partying with Caligula!
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your email. I am glad that the post caught your interest.
Your comments are most interesting and enjoyable to me, although I suspect that you might be playing devil's advocate slightly.
I do agree - to a certain extent - with what you say, as I am quite sure that Suetonius is a most salacious and exaggerated tabloid commentator. Some of his wider assertions on other emperors are pure muck. However, on this he is to some degree equitable in his treatment of all the emperors, and yet it is Caligula that stands out to us as the pinnacle of imperial evil and brutal depravity.
I agree with you that Caligula was not popular amongst the senatorial classes and yet it is the senatorial and elite classes that provide the basis for all our literary historical knowledge for all periods of Roman history - no other class had the tradition or luxury to write history. There is also only a patchy historiography for Caligula in general. So we have to go on what we have got, albeit with a sensible degree of critical evaluation.
I also totally buy into some of your alternative interpretations of C's specific actions. Some of which I am sure, have been wilfully miss-interpreted. Indeed, I would argue that some of Caligula's much derided 'military' exercises - such as his bridging and military procession across the bay between Baiae and Puteoli (Suet 19) - represent an attempt by a largely sedentary and essentially non-military emperor, to identify himself with the army as its essential commander in chief. I believe this was always a major problem facing emperors of the early principate. It was essential for their success and image to be seen as ostensibly 'military men' - at least in some aspects - and yet few could achieve the political security and space away from Rome to pursue and demonstrate this facet of their rule. Especially not while holding down things in the centre. There was always the prospect of another Sejanus or Galba popping up.
As to the reasons for C's challenging behaviour - even if only a proportion is true - its anyone's guess really. I for one, don't see how he could have remained 'balanced' after the deadly dynastic intrigues of his youth that decimated his family. It also seems that he may have been traumatised by his early witnessing of the German legions mutiny in which he and his family were caught up. He certainly had not seemed to have forgiven this even years later as an adult.
However, when all is said and done, no one really knows for sure. Ancient history is so scant for sources in many areas that it allows much room for counter argument. I like that about it.
I personally would not have wished to party with Caligula. It may have been a wild night, but also a bit too erratic and unpredictable for me. I would not have given you more than a year or two before, you might have found yourself in an unfortunate position - "burning the candle at both ends", with you being the human candle perhaps! :)
Thanks for your email.
Colinus