Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

I, Claudius by Robert Graves is our February 2021 New School Classic Group Read.

This is the Spoiler thread.

I've been impatient and have already finished, but now impatient to discuss it with you! And really there's just a few things that could be called "spoilers" in this book, not only because Wikipedia knows all the actual history but because the narrative starts with promising to tell us how such and such became so and so.

To begin with, how do you feel about the historical basis for the book? Most of the documents and books mentioned here do not survive, and in any case they probably didn't say anything about the motivations. So, "the chief of it must be invention" - do you like that?

I am at around 164 / 35% and very well entertained. Could George R.R. Martin have picked up a thing or two here?

Minor spoiler for both Game of Thrones and I, Claudius
(view spoiler)[
In Game of Thrones I thought it was rather crazy what the Lannister family would do to stay in power. Even if it was very uncomfortable for themselves or even making their personal lives miserable. Some people here seem to think long the same lines. (hide spoiler)]

Nente wrote: "So, "the chief of it must be invention" - do you like that? "

I am OK with that so long as:
1) No known facts are contradicted
2) And preferably there is an afterword explaining sources and liberties.

I am watching Netflix Roman Empire docudrama in the order Netflix have them in: starting with season 3 Caligula. So I have possibly spoiled the later part of the book for myself, but I am looking forward to see how much they agree/disagree.

I am now watching season 2 “Julius Caesar: Master of Rome“. Honestly, my knowledge of Caesar has mostly been from Shakespeare and Asterix, so it has always puzzled me why this noble man had to be killed. Now I know...

I can feel a Roman Empire-reading spree coming. There seems to be a few books possible after:

Quo Vadis by Henryk Sienkiewicz. I will nominate for april. Sienkiewicz won the Nobel Prize.

Claudius the God and His Wife Messalina by Robert Graves

Augustus by John Williams. Yes, the Stoner-author.

Oh come, Martin's just the most recent wave of popularity. I'm pretty sure a lot of historical fiction and non-fiction has ruthless people in power, that's just how power worked - and continues to work I honestly believe, whenever you/we let it.

I will support Sienkiewicz, that's a very good idea!

I am so excited for this discussion. I done some reading on the history of Rome and a few historical fiction too. So the big spoilers shouldn't be spoilers for me if it follows what we know from history.

J_BlueFlower wrote:

I am OK with that so long as:
1) No known facts are contradicted
2) And preferably there is an afterword explaining sources and liberties."

Graves says generally that none of his fictional facts were historically inconceivable, but doesn't go into detail on liberties.
Obviously we couldn't expect to check stuff like whether Livia and Augustus slept together, or who secretly murdered whom from all the multitude here; but I would certainly trust him not to drop the ball on who commanded which garrison and governed which province.

Finished the second book. I will only say that there is less story and more philosophy there, but I found it worthy, possibly even better than the first.

Do you think that Claudius is a reliable narrator?

In some ways he is unreliable:

He is supposed to be lame and is carried around but there is a fire where he save some stuff including furniture. Things like that are probably small mistakes from the author.

I think he is often manipulating other people more than it seems from what he is telling. He is trying to appear to not be a danger to whomever is in power.

I think he's by and large reliable. Re the manipulations, I think the younger Claudius to whom it's all happening just instinctively makes himself out to be a harmless idiot, and the older Claudius thinks his narration shows that sufficiently, and there's just no need to highlight it.

What did you think of Graves's decision to use "familiar" words and modern names of towns and countries? I was honestly bemused by "regiment" instead of "legion," modern-sounding military titles, and sometimes was jolted out of the flow by geographically modern names even while I was thankful that I can understand them.

I think Claudius was smart enough to "play dumb" when situations warranted it. Later on, we'll see that he used his alleged idiocy as a cover, whereas Graves would have told us he was one of the smarter Emperors.

And "Regiment"? Graves' generation had experienced World War One and knew such terminology well.

A wonderful book to read for the budding "Gravesian" is his jaundiced war memoir, Good-Bye to All That: An Autobiography.

It's also worth recalling that Graves' histories were very accomplished, but this novel set him up financially for life. When I, CLAUDIUS was run as part of "Masterpiece Theater" on BBC and PBS several decades ago, we still had Alisair Cooke to point out the book's virtues -- not so much now.

through Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/I-Clavdivs-Der...

ALLEN wrote: "...we still had Alisair Cooke to point out the book's virtues -- not so much now. "

I'm not sure I get you Allen, do you mean the book has lost popularity compared to first years after publication?

I don't know if the book or its sequels actually LOST popularity; more like this (from Wikipedia):

"I, Claudius is a historical novel by English writer Robert Graves, published in 1934. Written in the form of an autobiography of the Roman Emperor Claudius, it tells the history of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the early years of the Roman Empire, from Julius Caesar's assassination in 44 BC to Caligula's assassination in AD 41."

Then, in 1976, it was serialized for television -- BBC and PBS. Undoubtedly the television runs spurred book sales on both sides of the Atlantic. During those broadcasts, when I was in college, I can't tell you how often I remember my fellow students remarking that the broadcasts had first brought Graves' books to their attention through Alistair Cook's introductions.

Why do you think Graves chose to write this novel in the first person of Claudius, as opposed to a third-person narrator. Do you think it works well?

It's so difficult to answer a question like that when you liked the book. If I didn't like it I would probably have found reasons, but as it is - yeah, I thought it worked well.
Anyway Claudius the narrator is pretty nearly omniscient, because he's writing a good long time after the events and researched all he could, and he doesn't even make any effort not to spoil his narrative ahead. Rather the opposite.

Good points. Claudius adds perspective, and he is no fool.

Did anyone else pick up on Graves's insistence that "you have to treat Germans brutally"? He expounds on that when talking about Germanicus's conquests, and I wondered, considering the year of publication is 1934. It could hardly have not been meant to relate to contemporary events.

Yes, there is definitely something going on:

"The Germans," he said, "are the most insolent and boastful nation in the world when things go well with them, but once they are defeated they are the most cowardly and abject. Never trust a German out of your sight, but never be afraid of him when you have him face to face. "

There is a major hint in in the word ”nation” since Germany then was tribes - not a nation.

"If Germans ever become civilised it will then be time to judge whether they are cowards or not. They seem, however, to be an exceptionally nervous and quarrelsome people, and I cannot make up my mind whether there is any immediate chance of their becoming really civilised. "

Or as Winston Churchill said it: "The Germans are either at your feet or at your throat."

Talking a bit about the same stuff in the second book: (view spoiler)[
There Claudius comes into conflict both with Germans and with the British - and yes, he calls them British too, though I forget if he used the actual word "nation." He is sure that the British are alike to Romans and will become civilized easily, after which they would prove valuable allies. There is little in the actual events to justify it, only some instances of brave and proud commanders even when the British are defeated.
Here I ceased to wonder. (hide spoiler)]

Back on topic, do you feel Claudius - or indeed Graves - intentionally demonizes Livia?

No. I think his is actually trying to be objective.

I am at page 418 / 88%. Based on so far:

(view spoiler)[1) In the end it is Tiberius choosing Caligula - not Livia - becaurse Tiberius wants someone worse than himself. 2) Livia admits having underestimated Caligula. 3) At some point Claudius has a comment about xxx (forgot who) would have been a good successor, but he was too soft and did not survive. Really it is most of the family that is deranged. (hide spoiler)]

If Claudius is demonizing someone it is (view spoiler)[Caligula. He is being both cynical and satiric about how unhinged Caligula is. (hide spoiler)]

Nente wrote: "Back on topic, do you feel Claudius - or indeed Graves - intentionally demonizes Livia?"

Graves may have been relying on ancient sources most historians would consider questionable.

A good deal of hostile gossip about her seems to have circulated in the Senatorial class, which was a big source for Suetonius, of course, but also for passages in Tacitus, who, typically, relies on innuendo. (One of my professors quoted a comment that Tacitus usually says slightly less than it absolutely necessary -- which leaves the reader free to make what he wants out of it.)

Graves also pointed out that Livia had married Augustus, while already pregnant with Tiberius, after being forcibly divorced from her first husband (And Augustus divorced his first wife to marry her: he may have wanted a spouse from the patrician Claudian extended family -- or clan -- to shore up his status among the aristocracy, and wasn't too particular about who it was.)

Her documented devotion to managing things on behalf of Tiberius is expanded by Graves to cover most adverse events in the lives (and deaths) of Augustus' other possible heirs. And the circumstantial evidence for their uniform "bad luck" is at least interesting.

Well, I did sometimes think that enough was enough - whenever anyone at all is murdered or even dies seemingly naturally, we can expect that Livia will be blamed. Though I guessed that (view spoiler)[it was Caligula who killed Germanicus (hide spoiler)], and loved the way Graves scattered the hints around for us to find.

Nente wrote: "Back on topic, do you feel Claudius - or indeed Graves - intentionally demonizes Livia?"

My edition has an introduction by Allan Massie, and he suggests that Graves' portrayal of Livia was at least partly inspired by his very complicated relationship with the poet Laura Riding.

(I have just started this today and only read the introduction so far, but as I watched and loved the brilliant BBC series back in the day, I'm not really afraid of spoilers.)

Finished. Very nicely changed speed towards the end. That conversation with Livia is SO well written. Natural and disturbing at the same time.

Now the big question is to read or not to read Claudius the God and His Wife Messalina ?

Oh do. It moves somewhat slower, but there's much to think about and discuss, and you almost feel that you are discussing it with Claudius.

Very tempting. I have a long time battle with not reading too many spontaneous books rather than reading from my TBR list. Normally it is those 200 pages book that sneak in. This fellow is a 550 pages.

But those spontaneous reads often end up being some of the best that I read during the year.

Katy wrote: "But those spontaneous reads often end up being some of the best that I read during the year."

+1

Katy wrote: "But those spontaneous reads often end up being some of the best that I read during the year."

There is an easy way to find out. Based on the last approx 1½ year. I divided all non-short into spontaneous, group read and TBR.

Two findings:

23 spontaneous, 17 group, 18 TBR (even worse/more undisciplined than I though).

spontaneous averaged 3.39, group 3.7 and TBR 3.38.

So groups are doing a good job in picking books. The majority of group reads are from this group. The difference between 3.39 and 3.38 is too small to say that spontaneous is better.

I am going with the TBR list. Seriously, I have some almost embarrassing have-not-reads: Les Miserables, The Idiot Moby-Dick... and personally fro me a must-read Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid. I would feel a lot more accomplishment of having read one of those than a spontaneous.

Hey, that is awesome that our group choices have been in general the best books read for you.

I've got Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid on my Must Read list. I've read the first chapter a couple of times. Maybe this year.

Katy wrote: "I've got Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid on my Must Read list. I've read the first chapter a couple of times. Maybe this year."

25+ years ago I read most of the book skipping all the biology. 10 years ago I started again wanting to read all systematically. Now I am skip-reading through that part and will read the rest systematically.

Just started the book... enjoying the flow and the tone of the book.

I only just now thought of returning to the start of the book and looking at the prophecy of the six Caesars that Claudius found in a book. I suppose it is fictional? Ties in very nicely with the events described.

Must be...

Nente wrote: "I only just now thought of returning to the start of the book and looking at the prophecy of the six Caesars that Claudius found in a book. I suppose it is fictional? Ties in very nicely with the e..."

I guess so. I tried googling a bit. But all references seem to be to the book. I also read the Wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Clau...

"Though the narrative is largely fictionalized, most of the events depicted are drawn from historical accounts ..."

It also has this interesting bit:

"George R. R. Martin, the author of The Song of Ice and Fire series, has spoken of how he was inspired by I, Claudius, in particular, central character Stannis Baratheon is partially based upon Tiberius Caesar,"

Meanwhile I have seen some of the Netflix docudrama about Caesar and Caligula. It features people dying from having molten gold purred over them and slaves being crucified along a road for every some meters.

What do you think of Claudius's personality?
I felt Graves did an incredibly good job, striking the fine balance between the different cultures. For example, Claudius's attitude towards women is if not modern, at least pretty advanced; on the other hand, he really believes in his ancient gods, rituals, and prophecies, even where it seems quite ridiculous to us.

But is claudius's attitude towards woman fictionalised or adjusted a bit to satisfy us readers , as he is the protagonist? Because we want to see him in a better light ? To believe he is different , in that respect ?

It is entirely possible that it's fictionalized, but I'm talking in the book-universe. Anyway it seems that the contemporaries conceded that Livia was a capable ruler, even if they had to make up malicious rumours about her to soothe themselves.

I'm afraid I'm not going to finish this on time, since I have only just passed the halfway mark.

I must confess I'm beginning to get bored with it. Those endless descriptions of battles. In fact, it is all description, description, description.

I think it's rather intrigue, intrigue, intrigue in the second half. Anyway Caligula should be entertaining.