Of all Caligula’s actions, the accusation of mental illness stems from his claim to divinity. However, in using the "evidence" of our sources to reach our own conclusions, we impose our own sense of the divine upon the looser definition that held for the people of antiquity. Although in imperial times emperors and their families could attain divine status after death there are examples of Romans likened to gods during their lifetime.

Virgil included Octavian among the praesentes deos (gods among us) in one of his Ecologues and even Marcus Tullius Cicero could record his gratitude to Publius Lentulus by referring to him as parens ac deus (parent and god) (Vir. Ec. 1.41; Cic. Sen. Grat. 8). Such expressions probably did not mean these authors recognized a divine being in Octavian or Lentulus but associated them with the divine qualities of a god. In the east, this fine line had been crossed so the Greek kings were honored as gods made manifest on earth. Even Cicero had temples decreed for him in Asia, which he refused (Cic. Q. Fr. 1.1.26). Roman emperors became the focus of this adoration when they became rules of the east. Augustus was forced to accommodate such worship but insisted, as with the altar of Lyon, that a cult be dedicated to Rome and Augustus ( Aug. 52; Dio 51.20.6). Tiberius maintained this policy of restraint and declined divine honors for himself and Livia (Ann. 4.37-8).

In Italy, Augustus was worshiped at the municipal level as evidenced by inscriptions and altars. [1]  Rome was a different matter where there was an aversion to the official worship of a man as a god: when Agrippa wished to dedicate the Pantheon to Augustus the emperor refused. Dio claims that no man was worshiped in Rome up to his day (Ann. 15.74.3-4; Dio 51.20.8; 53.27.3). Postponing apotheosis until death was one way of satisfying the popular impulse to view the emperor as a god. But there was an indirect way to worship the emperor during his lifetime.

Each Roman possessed a genius, a spirit with its own divine qualities. Following Actium, a decree was issued by the Senate that a libation should be poured to Octavian’s genius at every public and private banquet. Romans worshiped the Lares as gods of the household, and they were also worshiped at crossroads where their shrines were set up as Lares Compitales. This practice had fallen into disuse but was revived with the inclusion of the figure of Augustus and became known as the Lares Augusti. [2]  Sacrifices were offered on special altars to the Lares and emperor. Also associated with the genius was the numen, which signified the manifestation of divine power in any living thing or person. To worship the numen of Augustus was to venerate the divine property within him without acknowledging him as divine. In literature, the numen and genius of an emperor were used interchangeably. In 11, a municipal altar was dedicated to the numen of Augustus in the forum of Narbo, and was used to offer incense, wine and sacrificial victims on the emperor’s birthday and other anniversaries (ILS 112). This blurring of a cult under the guise of the emperor’s numen gave Caligula the impetus for the formal worship of his numen. [3]  Caligula is said to have punished people for not swearing by his genius. Doing this had become routine and supports the conclusion that his genius had been given special status (Cal. 27.3). There seems to have been no reluctance in accommodating the wishes of the emperor and Dio notes that the honors paid him as a god came from the mob and people of reputation (59.24.7, 27.2).

Caligula’s policy toward his worship in the east was to accept worship in the guise of a god. Hence, as Philo notes, the temple in Jerusalem was to be dedicated to Caligula as Zeus Epiphanes (Leg. 188, 265, 346). This seemed to Philo to be lunacy but the Romans saw it as a common practice. There were several temples in the east dedicated to Augustus as Zeus. In Rome and Italy, Caligula’s religious policy was conservative. He held the office of pontifex maximus for almost his entire reign. One of his acts was to restore the old tradition of the priest of Diana at Nemi being challenged by his successor, who must slay him. The practice had been neglected and because the incumbent priest was elderly, the emperor may have simply appointed a successor without recourse to the ritual (Gell. 10.15.6; Cal. 35.3). His behavior in religious matters was serious at the outset of his reign and he forbade everyone to set up images of himself and annulled sacrifices to his genius (Dio 59.4.4). This was to change, we are told, with the establishment of a full-blown cult, a dramatic reversal of the policy of Augustus and Tiberius, that included temples and sacrifices be offered to Caligula as a god (Cal. 22; Vict. 39.4).

Dio dates the cult to mid 40, the first event in Caligula’s assault on the Senate since his return from the north. The reason given for the creation of the new emperor cult was that the Senate had failed to vote him things "above a human" (Dio 59.25.5). As proof of Caligula’s madness, Philo describes his practice of impersonating different gods. Supposedly, he began by dressing up as demi-gods, such as Castor and Pollux with a different costume to suit his new character. Later, Caligula moved on to the major gods Hermes, Mars and Apollo, wearing a radiate crown for the latter while choirs sang praises. He was not loath to exclude female deities such as Juno, Venus and Diana. While this information tells us something of Caligula’s penchant for transvestitism it says nothing about his claim to divinity (Leg. 78-114; Dio 59.26.6-7). Suetonius mentions his dressing up as gods or goddesses in a general, non-religious context as part of Caligula’s love for exotic costumes. Dio notes Caligula dressed up as Jupiter in order to seduce women (Cal. 52; 59.26.5). This behavior was not unique to Caligula. Suetonius reports a dinner party held by Augustus where the guests appeared dressed as gods and goddesses (Aug. 70). Caligula supposedly once stood beside a statue of Jupiter and asked the actor Apelles which of the two was greater. When the actor hesitated in his answer, Caligula had him flayed. Suetonius lists this incident among the emperor’s pranks and the fate of Apelles may reflect the meaning of his name (a Greco-Roman word meaning skinless). Dio says that on one occasion Caligula stood on a platform uttering oracles. A Gallic shoemaker saw him and laughed. Caligula asked the man who he thought he was and got the reply, "An idiot!" Despite such an honest appraisal, the shoemaker was not punished because the emperor considered him humble (Cal. 33; Dio 59.26.9).

Evidence for an official cult in Rome is provided by Suetonius who says a temple was established to Caligula’s numen. Dio adds that the temple was voted by the Senate with a cult to be served by a priesthood, similar to the cult of the deified Augustus. A considerable sum had to be paid for the privilege of becoming a priest, and Claudius went bankrupt over his membership (Cal. 22.3, Claud. 9.2; Dio 59.28.5). The site of the temple remains unknown, and Dio complicates matters by suggesting there were two temples: one of the Capitoline and the other on the Palatine. The temple on the Palatine, called a lodge by Dio, was built at the emperor’s expense. Suetonius mentions only one temple but does not give its location. He does allude to a new home begun on the Capitoline where the emperor could be with Jupiter and the plans to build a bridge to link this building to the Palatine (Cal. 22.4; Dio 59.28.2-4). The majority of scholars believe there was one temple located on the Palatine. [4]  It is possible that the temple was established to his genius, particularly since the words numen and genius were interchangeable. The poet Persius alludes to this when he wrote that the festival prepared in Rome for the return of Caligula from the north was celebrated "to the gods and to the genius of the emperor (6.48). There also may have been a cult to Caligula’s salus in Rome. The cult of the Salus of Augustus had been established during that emperor’s lifetime, and oaths were sworn to it. Coins with the formula "SALVS AVGVSTA" appeared in the coinage of Tiberius but, characteristically, he did not allow a cult of his salus. Claudius banned similar honors for himself (Inst. 2.23.1; Dio 60.5.6) The cult of salus would not have been cause for offense in Rome but official worship of Caligula’s genius may have crossed the line for some Romans.

At first Caligula planned to have Pheidias’ famous statue of Zeus at Olympia as the cult status but problems with transporting it forced him to abandon the idea. Instead, a life size gold statue of Caligula was installed and was dressed each day in the same clothes the emperor was wearing (AJ 19.8; Cal. 22.2-3, 57.1; Dio 59.28.3-4). Dio says Caligula styled himself after Jupiter Latiaris, an ancient aspect of the god. Suetonius reports that the emperor would stand between the statues of Castor and Pollux in their temple in the forum to be worshipped and passersby would salute him as Jupiter Latiaris (Cal. 22.2; Dio 59.28.5). Quite possibly, Caligula used the temple of Castor and Pollux as a vestibule and so received guests there but it is also possible that a statue of him was placed in the temple. It was common for the emperor to place a statue in temples as an offering to the god. Tiberius insisted that his statues be used in temples as an adornment but not be placed among the gods, a restraint that his successor did not share (Tib. 26; BJ 2.194; Ann. 13.8.1). Caligula may have identified himself with a god but did not call himself a god. [5]

Suetonius says that Caligula took the title optimus maximus Caesar, and this title has been claimed to show the emperor’s intent to be worshipped under the guise of Jupiter Optimus Maximus (Cal. 22.1). The formula optimus maximus princeps appears in inscriptions as early as Augustus and was assumed by Nero, who refused divine worship in Rome. Seneca did not find this title offensive when applied to a human, so Caligula calling himself the greatest and best Caesar carried with it no divine connotations (Sen. On Mercy 1.19.9). There are no extant inscriptions, from any part of the empire, that proclaim Caligula’s divinity, nor do the extant records for the Arval Brethren (covering 39 and part of 40) include any claim of divine status. Such a status is, also, not recorded on Caligula’s coinage, where not even the slightest hint of divinity, such as the appearance of a radiate crown, exists. [6] Neither Seneca nor Philo, contemporaries of Caligula and not friendly toward him, mention an imperial cult. Philo thought the plan to have the emperor worshiped in the temple of Jerusalem in the guise of Zeus was madness, but he is silent on the existence of an emperor cult in Rome. It would be astonishing if such a cult existed that Philo, who was in Rome during this period, would not have drawn the obvious parallel to the attempt to establish one in Jerusalem.

There is only one passage in Seneca that some scholars believe may refer to an imperial cult. In describing the execution of Julius Canus, Seneca reports that when the condemned man was led to his execution he came close to the tumulus where a daily sacrifice was offered to caesari deo nostro (our god Caesar) (Tranq. 14.9). However, this reference is so obscure that there is no way of knowing to which Caesar Seneca was referring; it could be the Deified Julius or Augustus.

Another source of confusion is whether or not Caligula demanded a ritual of obeisance or proskynesis. At the beginning of Caligula’s reign the emperor was so modest that he forbade Romans from greeting him formally when he was in public. Dio says he was in the habit of extending his foot or hand to avoid kissing those who greeted him (59.27.1). There are instances when Romans prostrated themselves before Caligula. Domitius Afer supposedly prostrated himself as a suppliant when overwhelmed by Caligula’s talent as an orator. The Praetorian prefects and Callistus prostrated themselves when accused of conspiring against the emperor in order to deny the accusation. Seneca says that Caligula offered his foot to the senator Pompeius Pennus to kiss in order to introduce Persian tyranny (On Benefits 2.12.1-2; Dio 59.19.5, 28.28) (an alternate story is that Caligula wanted his pearl slippers to be admired). Lucius Vitellius is the only Roman who prostrated himself vowing to sacrifice to Caligula if he spared his life (Vit. 2.5; Dio 59.27.4-6). With Vitellius excepted, the evidence of proskynesis is servile flattery, not worship. By contrast, Philo and the Jewish delegation only bowed when they came into Caligula’s presence (Leg. 352, AJ 19.234). When Caligula thwarted the conspiracy against his life, we are told that senators went to the Capitol to perform sacrifices and pay homage to Caligula’s throne that was set up in the temple. In a similar fashion, 30 gold chairs were brought to the theater in honor of Sejanus and Tiberius (who was in retirement)(Dio 44.6.3, 58.44, 59.24.4). The senators paid homage to the throne of Caligula not as an act of worship but to do homage to the absent emperor with the throne standing in. Proskynesis itself was not regarded as a cult act but was an act of extreme flattery and, thus, degrading. Despite the negative thinking on prostration, following the reign of Commodus proskynesis became a regular part of court etiquette. [7]

Caligula and the Jews

During Caligula’s reign relations between Rome and the Jews experienced their first crisis. Although the emperor managed his relations with Jewish rulers fairly well, the Jewish people proved to be a much harder nut to crack. Many Jews had settled outside of their ancestral lands in places such as Alexandria, where their faith created local friction since they refused to recognize the validity of any god but their own. Roman rulers were not concerned with Jewish religion but the Roman people, in general, saw Judaism as a superstition that they regarded as a political threat. There were no anti-Semitic outbursts during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. When Germanicus visited Egypt he did not allow the Jews a share of his grain distribution because they were not Roman citizens (Jos. AP 2.63). Philo mentions the hatred of Sejanus for the Jews and he was responsible for the expulsion of Jews from Rome. He also forced 4,000 Jewish men to fight brigands in Sardinia (Leg. 159-61, Flacc. 1; AJ 18.81-4; Ann. 2.85.5; Tib. 36.1).

Serious anti-Semitism was seen among the Greeks, not the Romans. The Jews and Egyptians had a very old association, and there had been a large Jewish community in Egypt since the 6^th century BCE. Good relations had existed between the Jews and Ptolemies but this changed after Actium. The Greeks were offended that their kingdom had come under foreign domination and were hostile to the new rulers. Anti-Jewish feeling arose as an outlet to attack the authority of Rome because the Romans had safeguarded the political and religious rights of the Jews (AJ 14.188). There were no serious clashes between the Greeks and Jews until the reign of Caligula. Then, Alexandrian nationalists led by Isidorus with the participation of the governor, Aulus Avillius Flaccus, inflamed the Greeks into violence.

Flaccus was a close friend of Tiberius and was named governor in 32. He handled his responsibilities conscientiously at first, even managing to control the rabid Isidorus. Tiberius’ death was the turning point since Flaccus had played a role in the banishment of Agrippina, he had reason to fear Caligula (Flacc. 9). When the Jews wished to send a resolution of thanksgiving on the recovery of Caligula from his illness in 38, Flaccus refused to pass it on to Rome. At the same time, Isidorus began to exert a strange influence over the governor. Philo says that the Greeks offered Flaccus protection against Caligula as long as he was willing to sacrifice the Jews. What sort of protection remains unknown. Isidorus had a hand in bringing down Macro and if Flaccus had compromised himself through his association with the Prefect the hold Isidorus had over him may have been blackmail.

The spark that ignited Greek/Jewish tension was the arrival of Agrippa in Alexandria in August 38. Caligula had urged his friend to return to his new kingdom by way of Alexandria instead of the usual route through Greece, perhaps to report on Flaccus. The Jews discovered Agrippa was among them and asked him to forward to the emperor their declaration of loyalty that had been suppressed by Flaccus. Agrippa agreed and behaved in a provocative manner, parading through the streets with his bodyguard. Perhaps he intended to portray himself as an advocate for the Jews but for the Greeks Agrippa served to remind them of their subject status. The Greeks met in the Gymnasium to insult Agrippa and parody his procession with the local idiot impersonating him as King Cabbage. Too late, Agrippa realized his presence was doing more harm than good and left Alexandria.

The Greeks began a campaign of violence against the Jews unchecked by Flaccus. Some synagogues were burned and statues of the emperor were set up in others to desecrate them. In response to Jewish complaints, Flaccus issued a proclamation that regulated the rights of the Jews. Alexandria was divided into five districts, named after a letter in the Greek alphabet, of which two had Jewish populations. Flaccus decreed that the Jews could only be resident in one district, in effect creating the first ghetto (Flacc. 56). The decision was devastating for the Jews. There was overcrowding in the district, forcing people to live on the beach and in cemetaries. Many lost their possessions, looted by the Greeks, and the terrible living conditions contributed to the spread of disease. Jews who strayed beyond the boundaries of the ghetto were liable to attack by groups of Greeks that patrolled the edge of the Jewish district. Many Jews were beaten or burned to death, and others fared worse treatment: a group of Jews were bound together and dragged through the market to be kicked and trampled by the Greeks until their bodies were mutilated beyond recognition (Flacc. 55-62, 94, Leg. 121).

Philo suggests the Jews did not retaliate. However, Flaccus next arrested members of the Jewish council and conducted a search of weapons. On Caligula’s birthday, the detained council members were marched to the theater where they were beaten and forced to eat pork. Nothing further is know of events until the arrest of Flaccus by a detachment of troops in October (Flacc. 116). His replacement, Gaius Vitrasius Pollio, brought the situation under control and allowed the Jews to return to their former homes. It was decided that the emperor should determine the status of the Jews, so delegates were sent to Rome by the Greeks and Jews. Philo led the Jews and Apion, a notorious anti-Semitic writer, and Isidorus led the Greek delegation (Leg. 355; AJ 18.257-60).

Precisely when the Jewish delegation arrived in Rome is not clear. Philo mentions that they departed in mid-winter (Leg. 190), so the delegation could have arrived as early as the winter of 38/39. They briefly saw Caligula at the Vatican Gardens when the emperor affably waved at them and said he would set the Jews free. However, during the summer the delegation learned that the emperor planed to convert the Temple in Jerusalem into a center for the imperial cult.

The chronology of Caligula’s plans for the Temple of Jerusalem is confusing due to contradictions between Philo and Josephus. The survey of events in Judea by Tacitus helps to establish that the conflict took place in 40 (Hist. 5.9). What precipitated Caligula’s decision was a riot that occurred during the winter of 39/40 at Jamnia, a coastal city located due west of Jerusalem that had a mixed population of Greeks and Jews. The riot broke out after the Jews destroyed an altar the Greeks had put up in honor of the imperial cult. Jamnia was part of an imperial estate that Livia had inherited from Salome, so the area fell under the jurisdiction of the Roman procurator Gaius Herennius Capto. Capito reported the trouble to Caligula who, influenced by Helicon and Apelles, decided to punish the Jews. Hence, Caligula decreed that the Temple of Jerusalem would be converted into an imperial shrine with an enormous statue of the emperor in the guise of Jupiter. The governor of Syria, Publius Petronius, was instructed to have a statue made of the emperor and use his legions to quell any unrest (AJ 18.261).

Petronius was a very capable governor who had studied Jewish philosophy and understood the affront to Jewish religion the temple conversion would cause. He invited Jewish leaders to a meeting in an attempt to make them accept the desecration - their subsequent refusal was no surprise. In accordance with Caligula’s instructions, Petronius mobilized two legions probably in May 40 but he halted at the border of Galilee where a massive demonstration by the Jews took place. Petronius decided on a bit of subterfuge and told the sculptors to take their time. (AJ 18.262-9, BJ 2.187; Leg. 225-42, 245-6). The governor met with Aristobulus, nephew of Antipas at Tiberias where, after further Jewish demonstrations, he wrote to Caligula presenting the Jewish case against the desecration (AJ 18.269-83, BJ 2.192-201). The Jews, apart from the promising riots, threatened to neglect the harvest to induce famine. (Leg. 248-54, AJ 18.277, BJ 2.200-02). Tacitus confirms that the Jews were prepared to take up arms and start a rebellion (Hist. 5.9).

Caligula suspected that Petronius had taken a bribe and angrily wrote the governor to set up the statue immediately. What was needed at this point was a true mediator who could explain the Jewish position to the emperor. Such a person entered the picture: Agrippa. Agrippa had returned to Rome in the summer of 40 without knowing about the events in Jerusalem. His role in mediating the crisis is told in different versions. In one, Agrippa learns of the desecration of the Temple and falls ill. While recovering, he wrote a carefully worded letter to Caligula that persuaded the emperor to abandon his plans to create an imperial cult in the Temple and to treat the Jews as his predecessors, with respect for their religion (Leg. 330-34). Josephus claims Agrippa saved the Temple by arranging a lavish banquet for Caligula, and when offered a favor by the emperor he seized the moment to ask that the Temple be spared conversion to the imperial cult (AJ 18.289-301). [8]

In any case, Caligula wrote Petronius ordering him to abandon the project but insisted that the Jews not oppose the establishment of imperial cults outside of Jerusalem (Leg. 333-4). Yet another version of events suggests that Petronius made excuses and caused delays that made Caligula furious. In his fury, he ordered Petronius to take his own life but the order was held up and only received following Caligula’s assassination (Leg. 337, AJ 18.305, BJ 2.203). Philo mentions that Caligula hated the Jews and planned a full-scale war against them, an idea that is patently absurd. Caligula’s desire to turn the Temple into an imperial cult center was meant as a punishment for the destruction of the altar at Jamnia and not an outright desecration . On the plus side, he recalled Flaccus and appointed a capable successor who eased tensions between the Jews and Greeks. When news of Caligula’s death reached Alexandria, the Jews decided it was time to settle old scores. They had stockpiled weapons for some time and, together with Jews from other parts of Egypt and Syria, went on a rampage. Eventually, the prefect was able to stop the bloodshed (AJ 19.278-9). At the urging of Agrippa, Claudius issued an edict addressing the grievances of the Jews of Alexandria, but it arrived too late to prevent the uprising. Once order was restored, Claudius took a firm line in seeking toleration between Jews and Greeks, and admonished the Jews not to scorn the religious beliefs of others (AJ 19.279, 286-91). [9]

Building Projects

Augustus claimed to have found Rome built of brick and left it a city of marble. Tiberius, by contrast, was motivated by his frugal nature to merely keep buildings in good repair and restore damaged structures throughout the empire. Caligula was determined to follow Augustus’ example and, despite his short reign, was able to initiate several major building projects.

Among these projects was the racetrack that was built on the Vatican Hill, near the gardens that had been laid by his parents. It was referred to as the Gaianum and allowed the emperor to indulge his passion for racing (Dio 59.14.6; Cal. 54.1). A more significant structure was the circus (known as the circus of Gaius and Nero) that was also built on the Vatican Hill, now occupied by the basilica of St. Peter. To adorn his circus, Caligula transported an obelisk from Alexandria using an enormous ship that was built for the purpose. The obelisk stands today in the portico of St. Peter’s Square and Pliny suggests that it was damaged in transit (NH 36.74). Although there are no visible marks of damage it has been speculated that the obelisk was perhaps twice as long. [10]  The circus may have been completed or expanded by Nero since his name was joined to Caligula’s. The circus was the site of the Christian persecution of Nero and was selected by Constantine for the site of his church because the martyrdom of St. Peter, by tradition, took place on the hill.

Archaeological evidence suggests that Caligula extended the palace from the Palatine into the Forum Romanum area. The palace, known as the Domus Tiberiana, has no literary reference with this name before it is mentioned in Tacitus’ Histories, when the author relates the assassination of Galba (I.27). Although the name implies the palace was the creation of Tiberius, his frugal nature goes against this idea. Suetonius says Caligula extended the palace toward the northeast (Cal. 22) while Josephus refers to the Basilica Julia (JA 19.11). Traces exist that suggest Caligula did extend the palace toward the temple of Castor and Pollux. Suetonius mentions that he used the temple as a vestibule and Dio mentions that Claudius restored the temple to Castor and Pollux (Cal. 22.2; Dio 59.28.5, 60.6.8). A fragmentary inscription ([GER]MANICI F[ILIUS]) that was found in a large water basin in a peristyle provides tentative identification of the structure to Caligula. The palace was destroyed in the file of 80 and rebuilt by Domitian, who perhaps changed the orientation of the buildings to the temple. [11]

Several of Caligula’s building projects in Rome were concerned with public work and aimed at increasing his popularity among the people. Keeping roads in good condition was one of Caligula’s concerns. He joined with Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo, a senator who had been prosecuting commissioners since 21 CE for allowing roads to fall into disrepair. It appears from Dio that Caligula fined commissioners who made fraudulent contracts or used funds budgeted for repairs for other projects. Perhaps these prosecutions were conducted with too much zeal because Claudius returned the fines and even forced Corbulo to pay back some money (Dio 59.15.3-5; 60.17.2). Caligula may have built roads in alpine regions to improve communication with Gaul and Germany. Suetonius says he planed to build a city in the Alps and was occupied with tunneling and leveling mountains. The Little St Bernard Pass was paved around the time of Caligula’s principate and dedications that mention his name lend support that it was he who ordered the work (Cal. 21, 37.3). [12]

Caligula began the construction to the Aqua Claudia and Anio Novus, aqueducts that would alleviate the shortage of water in Rome. The aqueducts were finished by Claudius and Pliny considered the Aqua Claudia to be an engineering marvel (Cal. 21; NH 36.122; Front. Aq. 1.13). Also of importance was the grain supply in Rome. Tiberius had experienced problems that led to food riots, and the problem of the grain supply became critical under Caligula, who was accused by Suetonius of closing the granaries (Cal. 26.5, 39.1; Dio 59.17.2). To remedy the shortages, Caligula undertook improvements of the harbor at Rhegium, which was extended by building moles. The work was not finished before Caligula’s death but it is doubtful that the new harbor would have helped to increase the supply of grain in Rome; Rhegium, being in the toe of Italy, was too far south, so the improvements may have been intended to relieve southern Italy (AJ 19.205; Dio 60.11.3). Caligula sent a military surveyor to revive the project to cut a canal through the Isthmus of Corinth. The creation of a canal had been considered by various kings and would have been a major engineering effort. However, the canal never got beyond preliminary work before Caligula was assassinated (Cal. 21; NH 4.10).

(C) David A. Wend 2001