Talk:Caligula

Graves novel

Does anyone have access to the NYT archives? This 1934 article might provide the cite we seek. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: You're in luck: ProQuest at WP:Library has old scans of NYT stories. In a day or two, I'll be on the case and once I locate it, I'll cite it for you. (H/T WP:GAR#Articles needing possible reassessment.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Years

I'm not looking to get into the "AD" versus "CE" controversy, but there are two potential issues with the way the years are referenced in this article. First, does every single mention of a year have to have "AD" appended to it? Once it's established that we're in the early first century AD/CE, can't the numbers of the years just stand alone? Second, if every single mention of a year must have "AD" appended to it, shouldn't it be consistently before or after the year number? I'm not changing anything, but someone should. CasparRH (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No. Things are fine as-is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250 (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Assassination infobox

An Assassination infobox has been added by a new or newly registered user. Opinions are invited on whether it should stay, go, or be further edited. Caligula is not particularly notable for the fact of his assassination. Questions hang over the circumstances, plotters and assassins themselves. So I'd rather remove it. Haploidavey (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm mixed to it. On one hand, I think it's notable enough as he was one of the first 5 Roman emperors as well as being one of the evilest emperors in Roman history, but on another hand, I agree that his assassination in itself wasn't very notable. I'm more leaning it to be removed, but I'd be fine if it'd stayed as well. Hellmann775 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Caligula

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Strong consensus to delist; a thorough rewrite is required. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This 2007 listing is disproportionately sourced to two millennia-old primary sources such as Suetonius, Philo, and Cassius Dio; this is not GA standard, especially considering the hostility of ancient sources to the emperor. Much of the article thus falls under 2b) of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should be delisted as it does not fulfil the GA standards. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Two full length modern biographies of Caligula are referenced a single time each; two more are listed in further reading. More recent still is Barrett & Yardley's The Emperor Caligula in the Ancient Sources. The fact that e.g. the section on historiography does not cite a single modern source analysing the historiography is a major concern; other sections could also do with much more secondary source support. There are also a couple of uncited claims which I would ask to be cited were this up for GA today. I'd also expect that the section on cultural depictions should be written in prose: WP:GACR#1b requires compliance with MOS:EMBED, which among other things suggests that Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose. A prose discussion of how Caligula has been portrayed in art and literature would be much better than the current list. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Concur. Delist. A rewrite would be necessary based on high quality modern sources rather than the current paraphrase of the primary sources. Ifly6 (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The current material is good as far as it goes (and on what it covers, does not need rewriting), but the gaps are far too broad to ignore. Still, it's a good place to begin a rebuild. Delist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

When I was editing this article some time ago, it seemed there were a number of cases where the timeline was broken, material was placed in the wrong place, and some elements duplicated. I wouldn't call the existing content good either. Ifly6 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kings and kingship

Pasting this here for now, as it doesn't directly relate to the section on divinity. It also suffers the same original research issues as almost all of the article. Not good, indeed.

Suetonius claims that Caligula ended a squabble over precedence among several client kings with the Homeric line: "Let there be one lord, one king," referring to himself. In Roman Republican tradition, kingship was anathema.

Haploidavey (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary, This article needs such a thorough rewriting it's hard to know where to go from here. I think perhaps the best place to go would in fact be a through rewrite. There fortunately exist quality modern sources (though not cited here except portions on his early life which I wrote based on CAH² 10). I would maintain parallel citations (eg in Julius Caesar Morstein-Marx 2021, p. 107, citing Suet. Iul., 16.) and it would of course take a rather large amount of time to read those sources, the literature review (I think the Julio-Claudian section of Potter's Roman history: imperial, 31 BCE to 284 CE is relevant), and then write up an article but it is feasible. Ifly6 (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Re bibliography: CAH² 10 (1994); Barrett Caligula (2nd ed, 2015) (First ed cited but not really used); Seager Tiberius (2nd ed, 2005); and Winterling Caligula (2003; English trans 2011) seem of most value. I would avoid Fratantuono Caligula (2018) per the negative BMCR review (little more than survey [of the] main literary sources for the reign of Caligula... Anyone hoping for a standard biography of Caligula must look elsewhere). Ifly6 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What a welcome reply, Ifly6. Such a vast topic. I'm happy to put it aside until I've a better grasp of the problems - or any grasp at all. Is a standard biography possible? Desirable? Alas, I was raised on Robert Graves. Just imagine that. I can see why folks are wary of tackling this one. Such flimsy historiography, too many choices, too many perspectives. The closer one looks, the greater the unravelling. The closest I've come to such complexity is the so-called Imperial cult; with Elagabalus as a close second. Or the Magna Mater. So much reading to be done, and I'm not even sure I have the capacity. The Brynmawr review is a very useful appraisal, and at least it leaves one asking the right questions. Unfortunately I lost most of my electronic CAH, which would have at least given a framework. Let's wait and see what happens next. Haploidavey (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess "standard biography" is beyond our remit. Haploidavey (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The standard biography seems to be that of Barrett (cited alone in Potter's bibliography and OCD⁴), now in its second edition, with Winterling's biography also well received. I would also review CAH² 10, of course, for more background. Ifly6 (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

One of our generous G&R editors has sent me what's needed: Very many thanks to Ifly6 for the above, and to T8612 for repairing and expanding my library of sources. Haploidavey (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

After several very intensive days rewriting the section on Caligula and religion, I'm very relieved to find that Barrett's bibliography happens to support most of what I've written so far (or will do so with a minimum of fiddling and fudging). Yes, that's not really how it should be done but it seems to bode well for the article as a whole. So thanks again. Haploidavey (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Burned after an American attack?

Does this mean that Caligula’s ships were still in existence in 1944? Where? How? 203.40.132.51 (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as the source describes in detail. NebY (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

See Nemi ships, which includes photos... you can still see the bronze fittings from the ships on the 1st floor of the Palazzo Massimo and they are well worth the visit. Furius (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Julius

I fear Winterling is overreaching if he asserts first that Julius "was willing to abandon the city of Rome and rule the empire from Alexandria, in Egypt, as a divine monarch", and second that "He was designated Jupiter Julius, and was voted a temple by the senate to honour his clementia (clemency). Mark Antony was chosen as his high priest - all this while Caesar still lived."

As I remember and find eg in Scullard, that Caesar considered moving to Alexandria was a rumour "probably ... set on foot by his political enemies in order to discredit him". Also, so far I've failed to find that the rumour was that he planned to rule there as divine, but that may well be my lack of sources and skills.

The second is perhaps based on Cicero and Cassius Dio. Crawford translates Cicero's Second Philippic, 110 "... do you really love him now that he is dead? What honour did he achieve greater than the right to have a sacred couch, an image, a house like a temple, a priest? So just as there is a priest of Jupiter, of Mars, of Quirinus, is M. Antonius now the priest of the divine Julius?" It's great rhetoric and insinuation, and has caused much debate. Dio has more; I admit I generally suspect Dio of filling in colourful details (his account of Boudica's revolt is so much more dramatic than Tacitus') but on this, he perturbs actual scholars too - as does Cicero (eg [1] which includes Dio's conflation of evidence, [2] including the baffling silences). Beard, North and Price in Religions of Rome (I, 140-141) have "The honours ... suggest that he had been accorded the status of a god - or something very like it: he had, for example, the right to have a priest (flamen) of his cult, to adorn his house with a pediment (as if it were a temple) and to place his own image in formal processions of images of the gods .... Ever since ... these honours - particularly those granted before his death - have been the focus of debate... you will not find a clear answer ... both Roman writers and moder scholars offer different and often contradictory views... taken together, they attest only the impossibility of fixing a precise category". Might we make our statements a little less definitive? NebY (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm away to family early tomorrow, and won't be back until Thurs. Will reply then. I've changed the source and some sequences but frankly any errors in citing Winterling are liable to be mine, not his. This is probably what comes of incautiously writing what seems obvious, unaided by scholars, attribution or scholarship. Have a good holiday! Haploidavey (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

No rush. I'm enjoying your work here, and fell happily down a rabbithole wondering if the Senate voted those divine honours to Caesar's genius or quite outrageously to him in his lifetime. Enjoy your well-earned holiday! NebY (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You too, Neby. Though the effects of two whole days without public transport of any sort are hard to imagine... Haploidavey (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Are questions allowed?

There's a question in the second paragraph of 'Conflict with the Senate', "If they had acted against Caligula's family, then why not against Caligula himself?". Should it be changed? Solus Bane (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting point. It's a summary of source material from Winterling (especially pp. 96 - 98) and as I added it in the first place, I'm hardly likely to object. It has a rather rhetorical edge, seeming to speak for Caligula but it's offered in Winterling's voice, not Wikipedia's. Haploidavey (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Help... with inline citation formats

Most Suetonius citations used are from his Life of Caligula, but at least two (probably more) from Life of Tiberius seem to have been misdirected to the former. The first is number 19 (as of this post's date-stamp). I keep falling foul of the nightmarishly over-complicated format (in other words, it's beyond me), which persists in linking every occurence of "Suetonius" to Life of Caligula. Help... Haploidavey (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I've got them both, by following the cheat sheet I made myself back when Ifly6 was preparing WP:CGR/Guides/Primary sources. NebY (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Clever, clever, helpful people... Haploidavey (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, one fool that couldn't resist a challenge and one clever person. :) NebY (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd split the two entries into anchors as {{harvid|Suet. ''Tib.''}} and {{harvid|Suet. ''Calig.''}}. Those then can be used as the anchor points as {{sfn|Suet. ''Tib.''|loc=##.##}} and {{sfn|Suet. ''Tib.''|loc=##.##}}, respectively. You can find the current entries by running regular expression Suet[ \w\.\'] \|\d?(p|pp|loc)\=(Calig\w*|Tib\w*)\.?,? \d . Ifly6 (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yikes! Regex searching inside an article is not in my toolkit. Happily, in this case I could easily do a lot with Wikipedia's ordinary search-and-replace (find sfn|Suetonius|loc=Caligula ; replace with sfn|Suet. ''Calig.''|loc=; Replace All). But first, @Haploidavey as the one who's been doing so much good work here lately, do you have a view on switching the refs to show e.g. Suet. Tib. 75, Suet. Calig. 2 and Suet. Claud. 11, all linked to the full entries under Ancient sources as currently for Life of Tiberius and Life of Caligula? Any links to specific passages would remain. NebY (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow... my brain freezes over when confronted by anything more complex than the simplest sfn. What NebY suggests is fine by me. In general, I'm in favour of linking to the same primary source editions as used by secondary sources; in effect, it surely must help readers and editors to know that we're all on the same pages. I'm not sure where that leaves us; what's been done at the Primary source list works admirably well; but I must admit I'd have great difficulty working within the format (adding to it, or changing any aspect thereof). I'd have to resort to yet another "cry for help". Haploidavey (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I know the {{sfn}} structure can be confusing! I think using it builds some intuition quickly though. As to which editions, I think there are three main views: the first is to give the title and nothing else (basically, be agnostic on translation the same way scholars are); the second is to give an open version – which is what I do with links to Perseus and LacusCurtius; the third is to link to the "best" version (Oxford World Classics and Loeb usually). I think all of them are reasonable approaches, especially the first which parallels how books on classics usually do their own translations. Obviously, I have preferences of my own and they are revealed in the articles I write. Ifly6 (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I used to be surprised we'd cite specific translations, but the Suetonius citations here are pretty comprehensive. They distinguish clearly between author and translator, link to our articles about Suetonius, the work, the translator and the Loeb library, and link to the translation. Shame about the dating, a known problem on WP, and I'd like a link that gave the Latin too but there you go. Right, time to put my search-and-replace money where my mouth is. NebY (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I had to add the Lives of Augustus and Claudius; the usual copy-paste-tweak-preview-oops-tweak worked fine, but yeah, cries for help work too! NebY (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Personal life tags, August 2024

I marked a few tags in this diff. I'm confused as to how Suet Calig 25 is relevant in establishing there is a contradiction between tales of Caligula's overweening sexual appetites and Caesonia's love potion. I assume Barrett is saying that; it would be uncharacteristic indeed of Suetonius to muddle his straight-forward narrative of corruption with something as banal as logical consistency.

I'm also interested in seeing the actual citations that underlie Tales reported by Josephus, Suetonius and the satirist Juvenal. Assuming the references come from Barrett, they should probably be cited in a X citing Y, Z, and A form. Providing such citations would be of some value to those with interest in the primary sources while also giving the necessary authority with which to establish the relevance of those primary sources. Ifly6 (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Real life interrupted me, and I lost my place; I hadn't yet caught up with myself. I've no idea how Suetonius 25 got in there (IIRC, it should be Suetonius 36). It's good to know someone's actually reading this... critically... Haploidavey (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not altogether that interested in the imperial era; I'm surprised I looked into it myself. I normally don't check edits on this page. Ifly6 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been surprised, from time to time, at Suetonius' apparent inconsistencies and self-contradictions. And then, of course, there are the difficulties in navigating Caligula's strange notions. See Barrett, p.285, note 5, citing Caligula's quip (in Suetonius Caligula 33) that "he felt like torturing Caesonia to discover why he loved her so passionately." Haploidavey (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Citation issues, August 2024

Don't want to be too bothersome since this sort of fixing can feel like make-work but there are some things that jumped out to me about citations in the current version. Some of the issues feel to me like WP:TSI issues; some others are just formatting irregularities. (Separated ab initio.) Ifly6 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Parallel citations unclear

It seems there are a lot of cases where something is cited twice or thrice like so: Barrett 2015, pp. 64–65. Suet. Calig., 16. Suet. Calig., 27. (joining up the citations). It isn't clear to me whether these are standalone citations to the primary sources or whether they are parallel citations such as Barrett 2015, pp. 64–65, citing Suet. Calig., 33. The mixture seems to imply they aren't (presumption of consistent usage) but there's not much reason to believe one way or the other. It would be very gratifying if they could be checked one way or the other to see whether these primary source citations stand alone or are in parallel. Ifly6 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

An example of this is in § Personal life. In one instance there are four citations in a row: Barrett 2015, pp. 65, 133, 285. // Suet. Calig., 36, 50. // Josephus, 19.193. // Juvenal, Satires, 6.614-617. Are these citations stand alone? If so, they need to follow WP:PRIMARY. Simply asserting they are inconsistent is an interpretation (and synthesis) of the primary sources and shouldn't be present. If they are all themselves cited by Barrett, it should take a X citing Y form (WP:SAYWHERE). Eg—

Barrett 2015, pp. 65, 133, 285, citing:

• Suet. Calig., 36, 50;
• Josephus, 19.193;
• Juvenal, Satires, 6.614-617.

I don't know which one version is the one that best reflects WP:TSI and the root origin of the idea. But I'm wary of these kind of standalone primary source citations since they aren't clear as to where the primary source citation itself comes from and who is making the interpretation of the primary source. If it all really comes from Barrett 2015, the citation should be WP:CITEBUNDLED. Ifly6 (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the three are linked as primary source support for Barret's assertion that Caligula was said to have been given an aphrodisiac by Caesonia, with dire consequences. Barrett names all three. Haploidavey (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent citation form

There are a lot of issues with MOS:DASH (these can be found relatively quickly with regular expression though \d-\d) and some inconsistencies with the use of Roman numerals. Eg Cassius Dio, LIX.25. (See, for regular expression, StackOverflow.) There are also a few cases where the numbers are separated by commas instead of full stops. Ranges should be separated by en-dashes per MOS:RANGE. Moreover, in general I think we should prefer Arabic numerals to Roman numerals and full stops to commas (eg not xvi, 5 but 16.5) since that is how basically all modern English language works cite the primary sources. CAH² uses Roman numerals but that's a very old fashioned stylistic choice now; commas are used on the continent but I think that mainly reflects decimal separator preferences. I don't want to be too prescriptivist but the mass inconsistency with which the article currently cites primary sources should perhaps be resolved. Ifly6 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit. There also seems to be a strange mix of manual short citations with anchored short citations as well as inconsistently formatted manual citations with CS1 templates (which have the added benefit of auto-populating anchors and checking for errors). A few citations are also unnecessarily duplicated, such as that of Simpson Latomus 40 (1981) pp 489–511. There are also a few inconsistencies where ranges are given |p= instead of |pp=. Just thought I might mention. Ifly6 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have de-duplicated duplicates that I identified, changed p → pp and pp → p where necessary, and fixed most (if not all) of the MOS:DASH format issues via regular expression search (?<=pp?(=|\. ?)\d )-(?=\d). Ifly6 (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate your doing this (and other repairs). I more or less got the drift of single cites (sfn), but I can't adequately express the panic and paralysis engendered in me when confronted with the need for more complex inline citations formats: it has been that way since primary school. I'm now 70-plus. My working memory is not good at the best of times and is near- negligible where symbols and numbers are concerned; if left to my own devices I'd do away with Roman numerals and replace with Arabic wherever possible.

I don't link to primary sources unless to clarify, illustrate or illuminate statements by secondary sources. Some of the primary links created in a much earlier version (2007, according to the article history) remain to be dealt with.

Much of what is obvious, easy or memorable for others is impenetrable to me, or takes hours of experiment (and once found is promptly forgotten unless repeated several times. Or more). Thank you for your work here. Haploidavey (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

ON THE EMBASSY TO GAIUS

here is stated "Both gave Caligula ample opportunity for casual, friendly banter, which seems to have included humiliating levity, always at the Jewish delegation's expense; but he made no claims of divinity, either in his dress nor his speech,"

Where it is taken from. Philo has firsthand account and meeting with Caligula was far from being friendly. And he clearly made claims of divinity! 85.253.137.205 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps; but the assertions in question are based on Winterling's interpretation of events (see Winterling pp 156-159), rather than English translations of Philo's "Embassy". If you've fairly recent scholarly sources that disagree, you're very welcome to add them. Haploidavey (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC) PS: apologies for earlier page-range error at relevant para, now mended. Haploidavey (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

why is his interpretation reliable and directs source not? 85.253.137.205 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY; User:Ifly6/Primary sources in classics. Ifly6 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)