This book wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t wonderful either. I wish the intro and postscript weren’t there - totally unnecessary, and totally cringey - and, loosely speaking, while I can give the first half of the novel the nod, the second half slowly lost me completely.
In the first half (or so) this books main issue (as far as my tastes go) was a distinct excess of telling, not showing, which is a turn-off for me in my reading. It means that, while we get a sense of events, but we can’t really feel involved in them. I’ll pay that this is in the memoirs style, and was meant to be all about voice, but I didn’t enjoy it for all that.
I think one of the great successes (in the first part at least) were the elements of psychological analysis of some of the characters - Tiberius, Livia, Augustus, even Julia - which were insightful and interesting to consider. This meant the characters were well developed and complex, which I think was a real strong point.
The second half or so, this goes into a steady decline. The elder Agrippina and Germanicus are hatefully described, which I think unwarranted; though Claudius ‘jabbering’ and ‘spraying spittle’ was worse; outdone only by the characterisation of Caligula, almost ejaculating at the sight of gore in the arena, and stabbing lizards for fun while leering like a maniac. These became ridiculous characatures that had me shaking my head more than once.
As for accuracy. Ancient history, when you start looking at details, is an amazingly fluid thing. People who talk about being accurate in this context have never really tried to write about this period. I’ve just finished drafting a Roman novel, and I can assure you, it is not at all easy. Almost every fact is contentious. Academia is fraught with long running battles over almost every point - from what they wore, ate or used to clean their teeth, to how many legions there were (& where they were), how they fed everyone, or even when wars and battles happened. A writer must chose what they believe and run with it. I no longer judge if a writer has a different version of ‘how it happened’ from me, because as far as anyone knows, they may be right.
That being said, I really found it hard to swallow the ‘Tiberius was a victim’ line. Sejanus, in Massie’s version of things, takes the blame for pretty much everything that happens after a certain point. It’s like in the first part of the book, Tiberius is pretty sharp and knows what’s going on; in the second part, he becomes completely oblivious to the bleeding obvious. I guess that’s one way to gloss over all the awful decisions he actually made during his time in power - of which there were many. He is not a figure that can easily be sympathised with in the ancient histories - a paranoid and vindictive pederast neatly sums it up - but Massie here insists on trying. Of course, Sejanus was the bad guy. If that doesn’t cover everything, well, Tiberius made promises to a golden figure on Capri, agreeing to lose his future reputation for ‘peace and beauty’, that’s why he’s so despised. He did nothing wrong, as Massie tells it.
Would I recommend it? Well, if you’re into the subject as I am, you may as well give it a look if you’ve nothing else to read; but I wouldn’t rush out the buy it.