Document Type

Dissertation

Date of Award

1977

Keywords

Emperors, Rome, History, Empire, 30 B.C.-284 A.D.

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

History

First Advisor

Thomas W. Africa

Second Advisor

Alvin H. Bernstein

Third Advisor

Michael C. Mittelstadt

Abstract

It cannot be said that the subject of Caesarian insanity has been neglected by the writers of the past century. It has attracted the attention of doctors, psychoanalysts, philologists, and legions of historians, novelists, scenarists, and the like. Though many of their treatments are helpful, I find a parochialism caused by a focus of one Caesar or a single discipline. Hereditary epilepsy, for example, may occur in the Julians, but it does not apply to the Severans. Nero may have been scopophilic, but he was not alone, if we are to admit the evidence of Petronius’ writings. Topoi may suggest the image of a tyrant, but they do not define personalities and actions. Historians may have witnessed events, but they also wrote about those events in a different regime and political climate. To deal with these issues, I have chosen six young emperors (Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodus, Caracalla, and Elagabalus) and attempted to consider the association of youth, authority, and madness by a thorough examination of ideology and events. To that end, I have treated alternative scenarii with the requisite revisionist sympathy, and the historians and psychologists with appropriate skepticism. I hope that I have forged a better bond between the actor and the artist, suggesting their attitudes and interaction. Both emperor and historian enjoyed a vision, endured betrayal, and equally suffered the huge delusion of some major purpose. Centuries of romanticism and prejudice have obscured the vision of each, but the distance is traversable.

I attempt to cover four basic topics in my study: (1) the transformation of the Roman revolutionary of the Republic to an imperial autocrat, and Sallust’s reaction to the conditions that he believed brought mentally unstable young men to power; (2) the delineation of madness and leadership, and a discussion of the variations and limitations of Roman beliefs; (3) the major events of the reigns of six young emperors which suggest insanity and reflect significant political crises; and (4) the failure of the young emperors which affected the lives and visions of the historians and indicated the limits of Caesarism. I regret that I have sustained a few limitations to my study. Dissertations often are truncated by the amount of time and money available. I have limited my topic in two fundamental ways. First, I have slighted a great deal of secondary material. I have not discussed historical dramas, historiographical studies, monographs on individual emperors, and many articles of incidental importance. Second, I have declined to attempt a psychobiographical study, which would seem to be the sine qua non for contemporary works on the character of leadership. I have only scratched the surface of the extant material and briefly alluded to the insights that it offers. Nonetheless, I believe I have consulted nearly every primary source bearing on my subject and treated each critically but fairly. If I have been able to cut away at the Gordian knot of universal truths which contains my subject, I will be satisfied with my progress and will be content to see this study expanded in the future, either by me or someone with more time, support, and imagination.

Download

Share

COinS