DDC/MDS
D0400304777 |
Publication
Original publication date
Description
Once a rather bookish young man with a limp and a stammer, a man who spent most of his time trying to stay away from the danger and risk of the line of ascension, Claudius seemed an unlikely candidate for Emperor. Yet, on the death of Caligula, Claudius finds himself next in line for the throne, and must stay alive as well as keep control. Drawing on the histories of Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tacitus, noted historian and classicist Robert Graves tells the story of the much-maligned Emperor Claudius with both skill and compassion. Weaving important themes throughout about the nature of freedom and safety possible in a monarchy, Graves' Claudius is both more effective and more tragic than history typically remembers him. A bestselling novel and one of Graves' most successful, I, Claudius has been adapted to television, film, theatre, and audio.… (more)
Status
Call number
Series
Collection
Media reviews
User reviews
This fictional memoir approach makes it comparable to Yourcenar's account of Hadrian. This is not as dense, but both heavily rely on telling more than showing, and feature an enormous amount of detailed family relationships, military maneuvers and political machinations. They differ in two significant respects. For one, Robert Graves waxes more poetic than Yourcenar - literally, in his recounting of invented prophecies, quoting from Homer, etc. Secondly, Graves in particular is a wizard at completing our knowledge of events beyond what's recorded. I was too often forgetting that I was reading fiction, wondering in surprise about some astonishing fact before I had to remember that it wasn't (necessarily) how events actually occurred. Graves writes a very plausible and often exciting story, one that makes an enormous villain out of Livia and a victim out of Julia, swaps Postumus with his impersonator, attributes definitive blame for various deaths, and does various other tricks. I picked up on a few of these thanks to other reading (e.g. Tacitus) and by referring to the internet, but I'm sure I missed a few gems. An annotated edition of this novel would be brilliant, if it could cite through endnotes which parts of the narrative can be found in contemporary sources and which appear to be invented.
I would suggest that nothing Graves speculated is entirely implausible. He adheres to the known history, and what makes this so fascinating is that quite possibly he's guessed right on all counts. Who can say now?
The content of I, Claudius is certainly rather engaging as most of the characters are pretty interesting. The first half of the book consists of the long rule of Augustus, who is portrayed as a kind but naive man who is controlled by his devious wife Livia (Claudius' grandmother). Livia initially seems completely evil but as the characters that surround her become more and more awful, she stops seeming so bad; she is actually quite an effective leader- just one who is obsessed with being in control and assuring the successors are all her descendants. Then there's the sadistic rapist pedophile (no really) Tiberius (Claudius' uncle), who is completely paranoid and has most of the Senators of Rome killed supposedly because of treason and just wants to be on his island with his sex slaves living peacefully. And then most insane of all is Caligula (Claudius' nephew), who is basically the ultimate spoiled narcissistic little s***. He declares himself a God during his brief 4-year rule and will do absolutely anything to get what he wants all the time (and no one dares to defy him until he's assassinated). He also seems to enjoy killing people just because he can, tries to start a war with the God Neptune and is basically completely bats*** insane.
The nuttiness and evil of these rulers, and the many, many other characters who come and go (most end up being executed or committing suicide out of fear of execution) are certainly what keep I, Claudius entertaining for its entire length. The problem with the book comes from the fact that Graves chooses to write it as the actual autobiography as Claudius; rather than have any sort of really interesting narrative structure, the book is just one gigantic info-dump where event a happens followed by b, c, d etc etc. It really is like reading an actual piece of narrative history, rather than a novel. This means that, much like reading real history (in my experience of that anyway), the book is entertaining to read while your reading it, but it's harder to motivate yourself to read it when the narrative is so broad, there's no suspense or climax and all the events are portrayed in a detached manner because Claudius is not involved most of the time. The writing style is very plain as well so you can't really enjoy that either.
This approach just isn't very interesting, and it also seems rather silly when you consider that the book cannot be read as a piece of history in any sense because Graves constantly manipulated known history to make his characters behave in the way he wanted them to. So though this is nominally a novel, it feels like it's supposed to be primarily educational, but it can't be taken as educational because it's largely fictionalised. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as silly- if you're going to write a novel, write a novel dammit. I mean yeah it's still entertaining, as I said, but it's not exactly enthralling. But perhaps the choice to write the book in the autobiographical style rather than any other way was because Graves reportedly did not like the books (there's a sequel called Claudius the God covering Claudius' actual time as Emperor) and only wrote them for the money- seeing as the books were bestsellers I imagine this worked out rather well for him.
My mild disappointment with I, Claudius only makes me more keen to watch the supposedly excellent BBC adaptation of the two novels, because this material could be made into something really special. I'm also pleased to hear that HBO are intending to do their own version; this is the sort of story perfectly suited for one of their expensive and complex ensemble dramas.
My only minor criticism was the consistent use of modern names for towns and countries, e.g. France, not Gaul, which grated somewhat.
Robert Graves tells the story of the unlikely Roman Emperor Tiberius Claudius and how he came to be ruler of the vast Roman Empire. This novel takes us from the earliest beginnings of his life in the Claudian dynasty, up to "that fateful point of change," when apparently by the sheer dumb luck of having outlived his relatives, he ascends to the throne.
I greatly enjoyed reading I, Claudius despite the fact that I had to write an essay on the most boring parts of the book. My ability to still like the book says a lot. The writing is very good and Claudius is very likable. For some reason the misery of the plot doesn't make me want to stop reading, and I'm looking forward to reading the sequel.
My one chief quibble is that Graves chose to depict Tiberius in the conventional manner - a dirty old man with cankers on his body and in his soul (Livia no less being one of them). For some (possibly unnatural) reason, I had always seen Tiberius as greatly misunderstood. Certainly, Tacitus, writing decades after his reign but still able to remember the apparently chilling period of imperial informers (and the rampaging Sejanus, and the numerous treason trials), was extremely derisive in his Tiberian depiction, and Graves conventionally follows suit. Why, for example, is it necessary to interpret his reluctance to rule or be celebrated, as dissimulation? He was notoriously at odds with the Senatorial class because according to Tacitus (and Graves), he said one thing but meant another. But was this necessarily the case? I would find an exploration of this situation would have made Tiberius a more compelling (rather than repellent) character.
I’m glad to see at least, that Graves tips his hat to the fact that most of the time the average Roman couldn’t care less what was happening at the top end of town; even if heads were rolling, they were on too-lofty shoulders anyway, and life for the most part was good. And all in all, like I said, while history plays a part in this novel, it is at times a bit part, as Graves assembles everything into a neat, compelling package. The changes to the true story serve the narrative well (I particularly enjoyed Caligula’s evilly bratty participation in his own father’s downfall and death), and leads me to the conclusion that I can forgive poetic license in historical fiction, provided it is done well and offers alternative scopes for (creative) observation.
'I Claudius' deals with Claudius' childhood up until Caligula's assassination, in the form of an autobiography. 'Claudius the God' describes Claudius' life as emperor of Rome until his death.
It's obvious that Graves knows his stuff and that he has done a lot of research. Granted, he does portray some of the wild stories that Suetonius and the like wrote about as being true, and most historians will tell you to take this with a pinch of salt. But hey, I remember loving those stories in my Latin classes, the crazier the better. I adored Caligula, he was just awesome. Horse elected senator, war against Neptune, oh man. Good stuff.
So many times while reading these, I came upon facts, or names or whatever and I would have an 'ohhhh yeah!' moment and remember things that I'd been taught years ago. These two books are a must-read for people who are interested in Roman stuff. Graves does tend to go into a lot of detail, so make sure you're a total geek before you start. Myself, nine times out of ten, I was very interested. And there's always epic battles, murder, deceit, banishment and adultery to mix things up.
Personally, I enjoyed the first book a little more than the second one, but that might be because the first one has historical V.I.P.'s such as Caligula and Augustus (who is, by the way, probably a little slower and a little more pussywhipped than the real Augustus was), but they are both still very much recommended. By me.
Surely the aim of the author of historical fiction is to make the reader forget he/she is reading a novel. This book succeeds magnificently.
Robert Graves is a superlative writer and can really turn a phrase when he had to.
As
The last hundred or so pages did manage to suck me in, once we got to the debaucheries of Caligula and things got downright bizarre. The evils of various powerful characters are a bit hard to take, though, both in that they do horrible things consistently (braining children against walls, executing someone for mentioning the emperor, slaughtering entire provinces at little provocation) and that their motives seem a bit one-dimensional.
The historical research that Graves must have done for this book seems extensive: details seem correct as far as my rudimentary knowledge of Roman history goes. I thought I had him on one point: he consistently talks about the "corn supply" in Rome, even though corn (maize) is a new world plant. But apparently Europeans use the term "corn" to refer to generic grain. So no dice there.
In retrospect, I'm surprised I didn't cotton to this book more. It had the elements I like: history, narrative, forward momentum, that I like, but something felt a bit too, dare I say, masculine about it, too brute force, too military history for me.
Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus (10 BC-54 AD) was a member of the royal Julian House: son of Drusus and Antonia, grandson of Augustus (Octavian) and Lavia, down the line of Julius Caesar. Fate had destined Claudius to be a loner in the Julian House, alienated and was deprived of all opportunities for advancement. His family, even his mother Atonia, who only took care of his practical needs but did not love him, despised him as a weakling and dismissed him as an idiot. Not only was the family ashamed of his stammering, it consistently feared of Claudius's committing a solecism upon which the public would comment. Claudius's closest companions included his tutor Athenodorus who encouraged him to become a historian and his own brother Germanius, who never stopped defending his brother .
Though eventually Claudius became the family priest, Claudius still felt most keenly the family's disappointment in him and the slights he met everywhere. Under the tutelage of Pollio and encouragement of Athenodorus, Claudius gathered materials for a life of his father and grandfather, the poisoning of whom had greatly perplexed and haunted Claudius.
Pollio's advice to Claudius had been proved sound and perspicacious throughout the tempestuous years as Claudius survived the intrigues, manipulation, bitter contention for power, lampoons, caprices and poisonings that marked the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius (uncle of Claudius whom Livia contrived to enthrone at the expense of ridding her great-grandsons), and the mad, capricious Caligula. Always a great disappointment to his mother, ironically, it was Claudius's half-wit, feebleness, temerity, and outward incompetence that saved him from the conspiracy, murder, the wickedness, the sufferings, and the wrath that had so ineluctably befallen his brother Germanicus, his nephews Nero, Drusus, and Gemellas.
I, Claudius tells the amazing tale of one man's exaltation from a historian to the emperor, a tale that magnifies Claudius's loyalty to his friends, his loyalty to his cruel family, his loyalty to Rome, and his loyalty to the truth (and defending of the truth) and how the virtue had rewarded him with the greatest honor and done him justice for the slights he had met all his life. The account celebrates Claudius's untroubled spirit and power of discernment in all his duties, both human and sacred. The characters are delineated to the full etch and nuance which lend verisimilitude of the historical period. The book is one of the most fun, interesting, behuiling book I have read that I almost reads like history.
This turned out to be a fun read, although it sometimes comes off sounding like a history book (not surprising since Claudius is a historian much of his life). I don't know how much the infighting between family members and the general lust for power is based on actual history (my guess is Graves fudged quite a bit), but it is rather entertaining for the most part.
The villain in the book is Livia, the second wife of Augustus. She manipulates Augustus against the members of his own family and murders a number of people with poison to insure that her son, Tiberius, would succeed Augustus as Emperor of Rome. There is an interesting scene where she spends four hours answering all of Claudius's questions about her evil doings.
Tiberius spent many years leading the armies of Rome in numerous campaigns at the order of Augustus. After Tiberius became Emperor he retreated to the island of Capri where he divided his time between philosophical discussions and sexual perversion.
Tiberius appoints Caligula as his successor thinking that Caligula is so cruel and corrupt history will not notice the evil of Tiberius. Caligula proves him right.
In the second year of his reign Caligula became very ill and many historians hypothesize that he suffered a massive nervous breakdown or organic brain damage that accounted for his insane cruelty. In the book Caligula kills his sister when she is pregnant with his child and has relationships with his other two sisters. He proclaims himself a god and makes his horse a member of the Senate. His pattern of theft and murder made him such a threat to the members of the ruling class that he is finally assassinated and Claudius becomes Emperor.
Claudius was afflicted with numerous disabilities from birth and was excluded from public office by his family. He limped and was not fit to join the army. He stammered and never was able to speak in public. His disabilities saved his life as everyone else that was seen as a threat to the Emperors was killed one way or another.
The book is more fiction than history but it is a good story. These were the people that ruled the world and this depiction of their personal lives, even if it is not all true, brings them to life as people, and like most powerful people not really nice people.
Robert Graves does the impossible: he makes very dense material lively and
The characters are thoroughly described and very rich in depth. Plus, I think that I have encountered one of the most devious AND fascinating characters of all time: Livia. I'm not going to give anything away, but trust me when I say that she is one of the most rich female characters ever presented. Although this is historical fiction, Graves does a wonderful job of recounting historical events, which is why I think this book is an excellent read for anyone studying/interested in Ancient Rome.
If you havn't the time for the book track down a copy of the BBC's 70's TV series, its equally impressive with top quality acting you only find in the UK.