need to read up on the background behind this book as I am not sure how much is fiction and how much is just actually history told as a story by a character who lived it.
To me, Historical Fiction means a fiction story set in a historical time period and maybe told with real historical figures, In this case I am thinking it is more than that not really a fictional story at all but could possibly be characterized as nonfiction.
I was fascinated by this story, It is a time period that I am aware of but that I dont really know much about, I knew some of the characters names and a bit about their reputations, but this book really filled in everything else for me, At times it was a bit heavy and I found my mind wandering picture listening to a history lecture but I do like history in general, so I was able to enjoy the majority of the book.
One thing that might get tiresome for you if you decide to read this is that it is a bit repetitive, Now, that is not the fault of the author, In this case, the history itself was very repetitive and it was usually the not so pleasant stuff murder, suicide, corruption, etc, that was repeated. I guess you could say that it is an early Soap Opera!
This book is not for everyone, If you dont like history or indepth sometimes sterile narration of events, I dont think it is worth giving this a try, But, if you like history, tales of the Roman Empire, the development of early Europe, etc, it may be a book that you will enjoy, Best book I'd read in years, I, Claudius is a brilliantly written piece of historical fiction from the perspective of a haplessyetintelligent black sheep of the JulioClaudian house during the Augustan era of the Roman Empire who stumbles his way through to survive the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula only to be made emperor himself.
At times hilarious, others disturbing, very interesting all the way through, Robert Graves wrote a masterpiece with this, I challenge anyone to read 'I, Claudius' who doesn't at least begin the lessfavored sequel Claudius the God at its conclusion,
In my opinion, this book should be required reading in high school world history courses, It is dirty and violent enough to hold the interest of any hormonal teenage boys, has enough intrigue and behindcloseddoors politicking to trap the attention of young women.
I finished this book and began a yearlong dive into all the Roman history I could find, culminating in a vacation to the Eternal City in November '.
Great read. A fictional autobiography of a Roman Emperor
February
Well, here is another historical novel that I actually quite enjoyed, but that may be because, unlike most historical novels that deal with fictional characters placed in an historical time period, this deals with real characters, namely the Imperial Family from the establishment of the empire to the ascension of Claudius to the throne.
As can be seen by the title, the main character is the emperor Claudius before he became emperor the story of when he was emperor is the subject of the sequel sitelinkClaudius the God.
I appears that Graves stuck quite close to the two major sources we have on this time period, namely sitelinkSuetonius and sitelinkTacitus, though he also used a lot of poetic license since a much of the book deals with the interactions of Claudius with many of the other major figures at the time though he does footnote a couple of things, such a Nero, since we are likely to think he is the emperor Nero when he isn't.
Okay, the book did drag a bit in the middle, but it began to pick up again when Caligula ascended the throne and we begin to see how the power went to his head.
Claudius is an interesting character, which is why Graves chose him as the subject of the novel, He suggests it is because he gives us a good sweep of the early imperial period, something that Augustus and Tiberius don't, and Nero and Calligula are simply too obsessed with power to be able to adequately write from their point of view.
Also, Graves suggests, since Claudius was also a writer then again most Emperors were, he felt that writing a history from his point of view would be the most plausible.
This, of course, is despite the fact that he is a cripple and a stutterer, however that does not necessarily mean that he is neither unaware of the world around him, nor eloquent in the use of the written word.
One of the things that struck me as I read this book was the idea of how the transition of an empire from a nonfunctional democracy to a dictatorship does not necessarily bring about better times for the subjects.
I decided that instead of discussing that to a large extent here it would be better to have a look at a couple of case studies namely France and Rome in my blog and I will link the two posts below.
However, I will say a few things about the period after the fall of the Republic here because it does relate closely to this book.
Now I, and probably many others, would consider Augustus to be a benevolent dictator, At the time of his ascension the Republic had effectively collapsed into warring factions and Augustus, after dispatching his enemies, brought about stability and peace to the empire under his rule.
While he remained in control the ancient historians seem to hold him in high regard and do not indicate that he ever abused his power.
From what it appears Rome once again began to prosper under his rule and the average person on the street got a pretty good deal.
However that all changed when he died because while Tiberius began as a reasonably benevolent ruler he did not remain that way, As it is suggested, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, As Graves points out, Tiberius became a sexual deviant and in fact pretty much had sex with whomever he chose, and because he was emperor nobody could actually say no.
It is even suggested that women committed suicide rather than living with the thought of having been violated by him,
Calligula went one step worse he was outright insane, In a way he was like a spoilt brat that never grew up much like a certain King Joffrey whom I believe nobody actually likes.
In Calligua's mind, the Roman Empire was his and his alone to do with what he wished, All property belonged to him, and if anybody even showed a hint of wanting to do away with him, they would be executed and Tiberius was much the same he quite enjoyed throwing people off of the Tarpeian Rock.
Calligula did end up meeting a rather sticky end, and since he had pretty much dispatched all of his rivals, there was only one person left to rule poor old Claudius.
In a way Graves does very really in crafting his character, and in many ways to begin to empathise with them.
He is born a cripple and treated like an idiot, yet manages to survive two brutal dictatorships to find himself inheriting the throne by default.
It is also interesting that despite Caligula being put to the sword, his assassins decide that returning to the Republic would not be the best for the future of Rome and instead decide to put what they consider to be a harmless, and mailable, person on the throne.
My case study on the French Revolution can be found sitelinkhere,
My case study on the Fall of the Roman Republic can be found sitelinkhere, Game of Romes
History is the lie of the victors, Or so thats what they say, But in the case of I, Claudius hailed as one of the best pieces of historical fiction written to date, the socalled lie is either heightened or degraded, depends on how you see it, into a dramatic tale of cunning, deceit, depravity and the glories of ancient Rome chalked with enough backstabbing, affairs, incest, assassinations, and debauchery youd doubt whether youve unearthed an ancient tabloid.
Granted there are certain truths that only a tabloid can tell, Of course, in this case it is idiotic to look for historical accuracy in fiction but certain things that happen are just so wicked that you have to wonder whether these lies are just that.
This review aims to take on the impossible task of diluting the deceitful mixture to separate the lies of the writer from the more essential lies of the victors.
There's actually very little in I, Claudius that's entirely unattested, But the thing is Robert Graves based on historical works that are biased and unreliable and he portrays the characters in a way to fit his underlying narrative.
Graves relied most heavily on Suetonius and Tacitus, He drew on Suetonius and a host of late Roman authors who are inaccurate at best, particularly for his narration of the earlier emperors to provide all sorts of juicy gossip that those works are full of.
But then he had a problem, There was a sharp division among writers of thest andnd Centuries, A, D. as regards Claudius. Many of his contemporaries, and particularly the Neronians, saw Claudius as the bumbling old idiot that you can find in the pages of Seneca and Suetonius.
However, under the Flavians Claudius became a model emperor, who was a struggling intellectual and who expanded Roman power militarily and through his public works, rather than the idiot who let everyone else do all the work for him and eventually had to rely on his wife so much that he fell into her trap easily.
Graves chooses the Flavian view of Claudius, and attempts to explain away the aspects of his character seen negatively by Suetonius and Seneca by various means.
Graves claimed that it occurred to him while reading through Suetonius and Tacitus that perhaps Claudius was not really as stupid as everyone else thought and that he was cleverly trying to stay alive in a time of intrigue and plotting that undoubtedly would have killed him otherwise.
As a result, the works are highly sifted and selected to provide particular, no matter how unlikely, versions of the events that took place,
There's nothing to suggest that Claudius, Livia, Augustus, or any of the other characters thought many of the things that Graves puts in their minds.
We know they did certain things, and there are a number of reasons why they might have done so, Graves picks the reasons he particularly likes and crafts a very good story from it, imagining that it is true, whether it is or not.
The other thing that Graves fabricates is holes in the record, Graves is very fond of linking events together that probably didn't have any connectionthe famous example is the important character of Cassius Chaerea, who appears all over the place and is a major plotdriver.
The historical Cassius Chaerea is only known as the prefect of the Praetorian Guard who was hated and teased by Caligula and eventually was one of the leaders of the plot to murder him.
Whenever Chaerea appears elsewhere in I, Claudius Graves is in fact imposing his character on a historical person, Basically, whenever Chaerea appears before then he's actually playing someone who the record says was named Cassius, and that Graves assumes or pretends was Chaerea, for plot purposes.
There's no reason to suggest, for example, that the same Cassius who led the survivors out of the Teutoburg was the guy who killed CaligulaCassius was, after all, the name of one of the largest families in Rome.
As I end, let me entertain you a bit, If youve ever watched Game of Thrones then you should know never to underestimate the weak, repulsive ones, What they lack in strength or in beauty, they make up for in cunning and intelligence, Permit me to say this but I do think Graves version of Claudius is, in a certain sense, the true Tyrion, Of course hes not a dwarf, but hes deformed in his own way, Hes lame, bowlegged, and a chronic stammerer, He comes from a family that comes to power because of a deceitful but nevertheless remarkable woman Livia aka Cersei then becomes the steward of sorts to his insane nephew Geoffrey or Caligula rather.
Not that Im trying to say Game of Thrones is based on I, Claudius or Roman history, or that Tyrion will become king of the seven realms.
Im just saying that theyre both entertaining, theyre both fiction, but that doesnt mean theyre both trash, Sometimes you need a lie to get to the truth, Immediately after the book was published the classical community exploded, with some denouncing the book and condemning Graves who explicitly states that he was not attempting any sort of historical or professional publication with the book, merely his own fancy, but it also initiated scholars to go back and revisit the textual material.
In general the book prompted a mass rereading of all the material on Claudius,
if only to factcheck Graves, and a great deal of things that were overlooked until then popped out.
This coincided with a revisiting of the emperors in general, So it did have some sort of significance for academics, and it did and continues to awaken the laymans curiosity about roman emperors and consequently about ancient roman history.
And for Game of Thrones, well the truth is, its just awesome, whispers does no one else in the universe think this is just, . . really, really boring Ho iniziato questo libro dopo aver visto una puntata di Passato e presente su Messalina puntata che inspiegabilmente non è più disponibile su Raiplay.
Tra le letture suggerite a fine puntata cera questo libro, pubblicato nel, dallo storico inglese Robert Graves in realtà qui di Messalina cè poco e niente in quanto il racconto si ferma allacclamazione di Claudio imperatore dopo che i pretoriani lo trovarono tremante nascosto dietro le tende.
“Io, Claudio” è un biografia romanzata sotto forma di mémoir,
”Io, Tiberio Claudio Druso Nerone Germanico eccetera eccetera perché non voglio infastidirvi enumerando tutti i miei nomi, che ero una volta, e non molto tempo addietro, noto a parenti e amici e conoscenti sotto gli appellativi di Claudio l'Idiota, o quel Claudio, o Claudio il Balbuziente, o ClaClaClaudio, o nel migliore dei casi Povero Zio Claudio, mi accingo a scrivere la strana storia della mia vita “
Così comincia il racconto di un periodo storico intrigante ed intricato.
La gens giulioclaudia costruisce il suo dominio su una trama di omicidi, tradimenti, delazioni,
Un sistema di adozioni e/o mogli ripudiate rinnova a ciclo continuo la geografia dinastica che certo non disdegna neppure spade o veleni, se il fine è quello di eliminare chi intralcia la strada verso il proprio obiettivo.
Graves costruisce un racconto storico dove la penna si tramuta nello sguardo di Claudio che è testimone ed osservatore delle molteplici manovre dei familiari e non.
I difetti fisici che lo caratterizzano fanno sì che non sia mai pienamente coinvolto nella vita politica, Il suo rifugio è lo studio assiduo che lo porterà a diventare uno storico e come lui stesso definirà uno storico imparziale
,
Da Augusto e le subdole manovre di Livia a Caligola che regnò soli quattro anni,
Uno storpio balbuziente su cui nessuno avrebbe scommesso,
Ottima lettura.
Oggi ci sono storici che tendono a rivedere alcune ricostruzioni di Svetonio e Tito Livio su cui Graves basa il romanzo, ciononostante, è una lettura coinvolgente che dà unidea concreta non solo delle figure imperiali ma di tutta unepoca.
”E adesso il lettore può giudicare se ho saputo, o no, valermi dell'occasione offertami dal Destino,
In fede mia ritengo di non aver abusato nemmeno di quella libertà che è tuttavia un privilegio dello storiografo provetto, della libertà cioè di inventar di sana pianta i dialoghi relativi ad argomenti dei quali conosce tutt'al più, e solo vagamente, la sostanza.
”.