Started: December 17, 2018
Finished: December 25, 2018
My History With this Book
This book is a sequel to I, Claudius.
I read I, Claudius way back in high school. I got it out of the school library, and read it over spring break during a family vacation. (I forget which year exactly, but somewhere around 14,15,16). Although I never reviewed I, Claudius, I've referenced it on this blog several times over the years--HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, I didn't continue on to Claudius the God because our school library didn't have it. In fact, initially I didn't even realize there was another book. Eventually I did discover that there was a sequel, and I've been meaning to read it for years now. But I never got around to tracking it down for various reasons. And in Southeast Asia, where I currently live, it's hard to track down books.
I did, however, find a copy in Phnom Penh.
For whatever reason, the selection of books in Phnom Penh is a lot better than in Saigon. And when I was in Phnom Penh last year, I scoped out the English bookstores, and saw both I, Claudius and Claudius the God on the shelves. "All right!" I thought to myself. "I've been meaning to read Claudius the God for years now!" And I snatched it up.
It wasn't until I returned home to Saigon that I realized I should have also picked up I, Claudius. After all, high school was a long time ago now. I'm 40 this year, which means it's been about 25 years since I read the original I, Claudius. It would be better to refresh my memory on I, Claudius before launching into Claudius the God.
And so, Claudius the God sat unread on my bookshelf for a year while I waited for another chance of tracking down I, Claudius. But then, one day, I decided that life was too short to wait. Who knows how long it could take me to track down I, Claudius again? And then once I tracked it down, who knows how long it would be before I was in the mood to re-read it? And then, what's to guarantee I won't get distracted by something else before I have a chance to continue onto Claudius the God? If I waited until the perfect moment to read both books together, it might end up being another 25 years. Better to just take the opportunity to read the book when it was in my hands. So I decided to read Claudius the God.
I'm obviously handicapped in my analysis of the series as a whole by the fact that I read I, Claudius 25 years ago. So take my analysis with a grain of salt. But I feel like I remember I, Claudius relatively well even after all these years. (Stuff I read when I was young made a bigger impression on me, so I feel like I remember my reading from my teenage years better than a lot of stuff I've read in the years since.) And at any rate, being a Roman history buff, I still know the general history behind the period. So I can use that to catch me up on any parts of the novel that I've forgotten.
Background
I, Claudius was published in 1934, and Claudius the God in 1935. So I think these books are old enough that at this point they can be considered modern classics. Author Robert Graves was also a celebrated poet, classicists, and all-around literary man in his own day (Wikipedia article HERE).
I, Claudius and Claudius the God are supposed to be Claudius's autobiography.
The real emperor Claudius did actually write an autobiography in his day. Unfortunately it has been lost to history, but it's interesting to imagine what kind of material that book would have contained, given all the messed up stuff that had happened during Claudius's life. And so that is the conceit of these books.
Claudius was the 4th or 5th Emperor of Rome, depending on how you count. (Most historians count Julius Caesar as a dictator, but not as an established emperor like the ones who came after him.) But the line of the famous Julio-Claudian dynasty (W) is:
Julius Caesar
August Caesar
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero.
Those names probably sound familiar because this is the most famous and most written-about period of Roman history. Which makes these stories interesting.
Also this is the period when history was in transition, and the Roman Emperor system was only just beginning to get established. Which also makes this period interesting.
Also, for those of us who grew up in Sunday School, this is also the period of Roman history that intersects with the New Testament. (Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus, died during the reign of Tiberius, and Peter and Paul were doing their missionary work during the time of Caligula, Claudius and Nero). Which also adds another element of interest--connecting those Sunday School stories from childhood with the larger historical context.
Within this time period, Claudius is a particularly interesting figure. He was one of the least-likely persons anyone expected to become Emperor. He was deformed, had a limp, was partially deaf, and had a stammer, and as a result his own family ostracized him. There were also dozens of people who were in line to the imperial throne before him.
That Claudius ended up becoming Emperor in the end is largely due to a series of extraordinary events, tragedies, and political infighting that resulted in him being pretty much the only member of the Imperial family that was still left alive in 41 A.D.
These extraordinary events, and all the tragic deaths that resulted in Claudius eventually becoming emperor, is the subject of the first book I, Claudius.
In the official histories, some of these deaths were executions, and some of them were natural causes. But in Robert Graves's version, there were no natural deaths. Everyone who appeared to die of sickness was actually poisoned. The primary villain (at least in the first half of the book) is Augustus's 3rd wife Livia (W), who is trying to get rid of all the potential rivals to the throne so that Tiberius, her son from a previous marriage, can become emperor.
This is, as far as I know, only fiction. (One of my ancient history professors at college was openly critical of the idea that Livia was behind all of these deaths, and told us to ignore I, Claudius.) But it makes for interesting fiction.
As far as I can remember (and granted, this was 25 years ago, so take me with a grain of salt) I, Claudius reads like a horror novel. Through Claudius's narration, you get intimate portraits of all the children of the Imperial family as they all grow up together as playmates. And then, one by one, they gradually get eliminated until only Claudius is left.
I, Claudius ends right at the moment Claudius becomes emperor.
Claudius the God, then, picks up right where I, Claudius left off, and tells the story of Claudius's reign as emperor.
As I mentioned above, I'd been wanting to read this book for years, because I knew some of the history around this period. On the one hand, Claudius was one of the most intelligent and capable rulers of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. But on the other hand, he was manipulated throughout his reign by his wives. His last wife, Agrippina, is most famous for manipulating her own son Nero into the Imperial succession. And we all know how bad Nero turned out.
The obvious question, then, is: how could Claudius be both so smart and so dumb? I was curious to see how Robert Graves would handle this.
Much of the history behind both books is based on The Lives of the 12 Caesars by Suetonius. Some serious historians suspect Suetonius has a reputation for exaggerating the scandals in order to make a more interesting book. But the job of a historical novelist is different than that of a serious historian. A historical novelist is free to take the ancient histories at face value, and simply make a narrative out of them. And that's what Robert Graves's does. So all the juicy scandalous details of ancient Roman history are on full display in this book. It's just as good as any soap opera on TV nowadays. (*1)
Speaking of TV..
I, Claudius is also famous for the BBC miniseries. It was produced way back in 1976, but it's got a reputation as a classic TV miniseries, so you can still track it down nowadays.
I'd been curious to watch it ever since high school, and eventually found a copy in a pirated DVD store in the streets of Phnom Penh. I reviewed it on this blog back in 2013.
Even though the BBC series is called I, Claudius, it actually covers both books: I, Claudius and Claudius the God. So after watching the BBC series, I had some idea of where this second book was going. It was interesting to compare and see what was similar to the BBC version, and what was different. I'll get into that a little bit down below.
The Review
This book opens right where I, Claudius leaves off.
...sort of... Actually the beginning of this book takes a 62 page detour to tell the story of Herod Agrippa.
Herod Agrippa, you may remember from your Sunday School days, is from the book of Acts in the New Testament. (*2) , (*3) I mentioned above that one of the fascinations with this period is the connection with the New Testament, and sure enough, right at the beginning we have a familiar name. It turns out Herod Agrippa was an intimate of the Julio-Claudian family--a drinking buddy of Tiberius's son, a school fellow of Claudius, and a trusted confidant of Caligula. Not only that, but it turns out Herod Agrippa was instrumental in Claudius becoming Emperor. Right at the pivotal moment when the Roman Senate was debating whether or not to accept Claudius as Emperor, Herod Agrippa made a speech which swayed them.
Here I assumed Robert Graves was just making stuff up because he knew his readers were familiar with the New Testament and he wanted to exaggerate the connections between the New Testament and secular history.
BUT... I looked it up on Wikipedia, and it turns out it's all true. Herod Agrippa really did have all those connections with the Julio-Claudian family, and he really did give that pivotal speech to the Roman Senate. (*4)
This would actually be a common theme throughout my reading of this book. Many times I suspected Robert Graves was simply distorting stuff for the purposes of drama or to appeal to the interests of modern readers. And many times I went to Wikipedia, and it all turned out to be completely true.
Much of the novel focuses on the administrative reforms of Claudius--reforming the judicial system, building a port in Ostia, constructing new aqueducts, or draining a lake. Occasionally the level of detail that the novel gets into borders on being boring. There were often times when I wanted to stop reading about the serious history, and get back to the scandals. But I looked it up on Wikipedia afterwards, and it is all factual historical stuff. In a book like this, the author makes you eat your vegetables before you get to the dessert--you learn all about Claudius's serious administrative reforms before you get to the juicy salacious sexual scandals.
(Did I, Claudius have boring sections like this as well? I can't clearly remember after so many years. But now that I think about it, it might have.)
Occasionally I suspected Robert Graves of going off on tangents just because they were interesting to him. But again, checking with Wikipedia always confirmed that all of his subject matter was rooted in history.
For example, in the sections regarding the conquest of Britain, there's a long digression giving all of Claudius's thoughts on the Druid religion. I suspected this was just because Druidism was of interest to Robert Graves. (In these modern industrial times, I think there's been a renewed fascination with the ancient mystical nature religions like Druidism.) But it turns out that this was also all historical--the historical Claudius was actually concerned about Druidism, and did pass laws to restrict it (W).
The scandals with Claudius's wife Messalina are hinted at throughout the book, but they stay in the background mostly. We don't really get into the denouement until near the end of the book.
The BBC production was of course different. In the BBC production, the sexual scandals took center stage, and I don't remember a word about judicial reforms.
The difference in emphasis between the soap-opera like television drama and the novel can perhaps best be summarized by one incident. After Claudius finds out about his wife's unfaithfulness, several people tell him stories:
Cleopatra told me the most horrible and ludicrous story. During my absence in Britain Messalina had issued a challenge to the Prostitutes' Guild asking them to provide a champion to contend with her at the Palace, and see which of the two would wear out most gallants in the course of a night. The Guild had sent a famous Sicilian named Scylla, after the whirlpool in the Straits of Messina. When dawn came Scylla had been forced to confess herself beaten at the twenty-fifth gallant but Messalina had continued, out of bravado, until the sun was quite high in the sky. And, what was worse, most of the nobility at Rome had been invited to attend the contest, and many of the men had taken part in it; and three or four of the women had been persuaded by Messsalina to compete too. (p.372-373)The event does come from the ancient sources. And although one suspects this is probably an example of the tendency of ancient historians to exaggerate or invent scandals, it is nonetheless fair game for speculation in a historical novel.
But in the novel, it's handled in only a few sentences and this only as a way of catching Claudius up with what has already happened, and not as a way of creating suspense in the story. These type of stories proportional also make up a very small part of the novel--they take up way less time than Claudius's philosophical reflections on religion, or details of Claudius's Senatorial reforms.
The BBC Production, by contrast, made these type of stories the main thrust of its narrative.
I, Claudius, Messalina competes with prostitute
In the novel, Claudius last wife, the infamous Agrippina and her son Nero, are treated as just an epilogue. Claudius as the narrator writes about them briefly. He knows Agrippina and Nero are bad news, and that she will probably kill him, but at this point he doesn't care anymore.
Because the novel is being told from the perspective of Claudius, it can't really go up through Claudius's murder. But Robert Graves covers this by including as an addendum 3 different accounts of Claudius's death from the ancient sources: Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dio Cassius. And then as an extra bonus he includes: The Pumpkinfication of Claudius--a satire by Seneca.
This last one, The Pumpkinfication of Claudius, is especially interesting for a number of reasons. It's an ancient satire, but it reads surprisingly modern. It's chalk full of all sort of historical references, so normally you'd need a set of footnotes to read it, but after having read Claudius the God, you're up to speed on all the references, and so you can just enjoy the satire. But it also comes off as a petty and mean. The author Seneca is a famous Roman philosopher, and usually treated with respect in histories, but in Claudius the God Robert Graves portrays him as a slimy backstabbing sycophant. And after reading The Pumpkinfication of Claudius, you can kind of see where Graves gets this view.
Anyways, there are a hundred other interesting things to talk about here. I haven't even gotten around to talking about the conquest of Britain, or Claudius's relationship with the Senate, or Claudius's thoughts on Christianity, or the politics in the East of the Roman Empire, or the Jews in Alexandria (the conflicts between the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria actually take up a lot of space in this novel). But I can't possibly comment on everything in a novel like this. I'm just going to end the review here.
Footnotes (docs, pub)
(1) I once read somewhere--I forget where--that Robert Graves was stung by criticisms that he had only just copied Suetonius in I, Claudius. So in the introduction to Claudius the God, Robert Graves fired back by listing all the ancient sources he had consulted in writing the narrative. And sure enough, when I opened up Claudius the God, I found this was true. Robert Graves does indeed use his author's introduction to fire back at critics and list all his sources.
(2) There's actually a few different people named Herod in the New Testament, so this can get confusing. Herod the Great is the one responsible for the Bethlehem Massacre in the Gospel of Matthew. Herod Antipas is the one who killed John the Baptist, and also the one who shows up in the trial of Jesus. Herod Agrippa is the Herod in the book of Acts--the Herod who kills James, imprisons Peter, and then gets struck down by God and eaten by worms. In the novel, Robert Graves does provide some background on this for the reader, and gives a family tree so you know which Herod is which.
And yet, in the book of Acts, James just gets killed off suddenly and unceremoniously.
Acts 12And then the rest of the chapter goes on to talk about the imprisonment of Peter. James's death is barely mentioned, and to the extent it is mentioned, it's only as a brief set-up to Peter's imprisonment. And it's not like the author of Acts couldn't do big death scenes when he wanted to. Stephen gets a huge death scene in Acts 6,7, and 8. And Stephen wasn't even one of the disciples.
1. About that time King Herod laid violent hands upon some who belonged to the church. 2 He had James, the brother of John, killed with the sword. 3 After he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also...
Does anyone know what's going on here? Is there an explanation for this, or is this just one of those weird things about the Bible?
(4) Actually given how big a part Herod Agrippa played in the Julio-Claudian family, it is a bit strange he never popped up in the previous novel I, Claudius and only appears out of nowhere in Claudius the God. The narrator tries to cover for this by saying that he waited until the second volume to tell Herod's story because they didn't want to break the dramatic unity of it. However one suspects that Herod's absence from the first novel was just an oversight on the part of Robert Graves. The BBC miniseries version corrects this by inserting a young Herod Agrippa into the beginning parts of Claudius's story.
Video Review
So... there's a lot to talk about in this book. I rambled on for 30 minutes until the camera automatically shut itself off. So I decided to make a second video, rambled on for another 30 seconds, and then the camera shut itself off again.
Video 1
Video 2
Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky Lecture - Distorted Morality
Claudius the God by Robert Graves: Book Review (Complete)
No comments:
Post a Comment