Reading the 20th Century discussion

Welcome to our July 23 buddy read of I, Claudius first published in 1934.

Despised for his weakness and regarded by his family as little more than a stammering fool, the nobleman Claudius quietly survives the bloody purges and mounting cruelty of the imperial Roman dynasties. In I, Claudius he watches from the sidelines to record the reigns of its emperors: from the wise Augustus and his villainous wife Livia to the sadistic Tiberius and the insane excesses of Caligula. Written in the form of Claudius' autobiography, this is the first part of Robert Graves's brilliant account of the madness and debauchery of ancient Rome.

Everyone is welcome to join in.

I'm making an early start on this - who else is planning to join this buddy read?

I first read this when I was about 14 and loved it so much that I literally finished it then went straight back to the beginning and read it again - this time with that twisted family tree more clearly in my head.

It was the start of a long love affair with the classical Romans - hence my avatar based on Clodia Metelli, sister of Clodius Pulcher, whose descendants get a mention in this book. Clodia's niece was Augustus' first wife. Clodia and her brother chose to spell their names in the plebeian style as a marker of their politics, but they were a branch of the Claudian family.

Anyway, delighted to be reading this again :)

I'd like to but I suspect it will be a buddy too far especially as I've added The Maltese Falcon to my punishing schedule. That said, if the discussion inspires me I may try to find a way to crowbar it into my list.

I also read it (and Claudius the God) when I was young, RC. Am reading it again at the moment. I know a little more about this era now, so I have a better idea of who was married to who, and who supposedly poisoned who...

Honestly, don't believe it as 'true' history, Susan - Livia was a far more respectable Roman matron than Graves creates, and Augustus wasn't nearly so avuncular, a scheming, hypocritical and arrogant ruler who created the role of emperor. But Graves' version is so much fun to read!

I read it when I was a pre-teen, ill in bed, and my mother decided that (as I loved Rosemary Sutcliff) a nice thick book about Romans would keep me amused for days! So she didn't have to make quite so many trips to the library.

We've recently rewatched the series, on DVD. Brilliant! Now I just have to find my paperback copy.

Fun that we're all re-reading so far. I also read Claudius the God as a teenager, not nearly so much fun! I still remember him creating the new letters of the alphabet as I thought that was so cool :)

Never read it. It is a new author to me. Not sure I can start before July but looking forward reading this book and discussing with the group.

I read it and Claudius the God in my late 20's, and they started me on a Robert Graves wave that lasted for 4 or 5 additional books.

I'm reading The Makioka Sisters right now, and may reread Claudius afterwards.

Is anyone else niggled by Graves' Anglicisation of terms and roles, places and terms? France instead of Gaul, 'market place' instead of forum, regiments instead of legions...

Oh, I meant who poisoned who in the book. If that had been true it would have been a little much even for then.

I've always loved Augustus. When I went to Rome I got tacky little busts of Augustus and Julius, which still live in my bathroom!

He was a populariser ... and needed to sell books!

But I enjoyed his compromises.

Yes, it was interesting that he set out to write this to help with his debts. It's good that he was successful in his quest!

Susan wrote: "I've always loved Augustus."

Gosh!! That said, I'm a great fan of Julius Caesar. Now I have visions of your bathroom ;)

Ben wrote: "He was a populariser ... and needed to sell books!

But I enjoyed his compromises."

I know Graves wrote these books as he needed the money but were they intended to be popularisers? Now you've said that though it reminds me that the first translations in the Penguin Classics series under E.V. Rieu 'Englished' Homer using unGreek terms.

I find it a little jarring today but am sure I didn't notice a thing reading the books as a teenager.

Susan wrote: "Oh, I meant who poisoned who in the book. If that had been true it would have been a little much even for then."

Well, exactly. And it's surprising how many people know in the book - like all the soldiers in the legions! (or should that be 'regiments'?!)

I thought I had I, Claudius, but what I have is John William’s Augustus. I just ordered I, Claudius.

I should stay in the ancient world and read some Greeks after I, Claudius because Emily Wilson’s translation of The Iliad comes out in September!!

On the topic of ancient Rome, has anyone read Masters of Rome Collection Books I - V: First Man in Rome, The Grass Crown, Fortune's Favourites, Caesar's Women, Caesar by Colleen McCullough? The final two books are The October Horse and Antony and Cleopatra.

The books are all 1,000 pagers but I think it's the best evocation of classical Rome in fiction.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Is anyone else niggled by Graves' Anglicisation of terms and roles, places and terms? France instead of Gaul, 'market place' instead of forum, regiments instead of legions..."

I don't remember that from back then, but I think I might prefer it to the sort of 'historical' novel where everything is given first its Latin name, then the English explanation - even when it's part of a speech by a character.

Roman Clodia wrote: "I find it a little jarring today but am sure I didn't notice a thing reading the books as a teenager"

I found him very accessible.

Ben wrote: "I found him very accessible."

I think my point is that the book is *too* accessible by replacing the markers and contours of the Roman world with modern 'equivalents'. But I'm sure the way we 'do' historical fiction is multiple and he was writing nearly a hundred years ago.

I guess I want the alieness of the past to be respected, not just smoothed over with a pretend 'they were just like us'. That's one of the reasons why I mentioned the McCullough books which retain historic authenticity.

I'm loving reading this so my critique is not about the gripping nature of the book, but a questioning of how Rome is represented.

I wonder if the McCullough books will seem less 'authentic' once we are beyond the era they were written in.

I am reminded of a discussion in Iain Pears' The Raphael Affair about forgeries, which explains that when they are made their 'contemporariness' is not recognisable, so the forgery is accepted, but as time passes the wrongness becomes much more apparent.

Rosina wrote: "I wonder if the McCullough books will seem less 'authentic' once we are beyond the era they were written in."

That's an interesting perspective. I don't think I'm of McCullough's generation but the books were published in the 1990s onwards.

The reason why I think they're so good is the minute detail based on thorough research and the effective use of the sources. She also doesn't pull out the 'big' events and people but is attentive to the whole of Rome including the Subura (the working people's district with its tenement blocks). She immerses us in the thought as well as material world and calls everything by its Roman name.

I've not read it yet. I remember the series on PBS. I have read The Long Weekend: A Social History of Great Britain, 1918-1939 and Goodbye to All That. Also have a biography that his son wrote but haven't read it yet. So I will read after I locate it.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Honestly, don't believe it as 'true' history, Susan - Livia was a far more respectable Roman matron than Graves creates, and Augustus wasn't nearly so avuncular, a scheming, hypocritical and arroga..."

Didn't he base Livia on Tacitus's version of her? Presumably because Livia as 'blight on the nation' made for a meatier story? Also wondered if he modernised or used substitute terms to make the book more accessible or suggest continued relevance of some kind? I assume he and his peers would have had a grounding in Latin/Roman culture as an inevitable part of their schooling so the changes would have been evident to them/literary readers.

I suppose it depends how many biographical histories had previously been published. Even now, not many schools do Latin or Classics (although my own children studied them) so perhaps he wrote this specifically as he thought there would be a market. Presumably only those in private school would have had a grounding in the Classics and this was the era of self-education. It was published in 1934 when there was both a great deal of political awakening but also a lot of self-learning. Book clubs, libraries, newspapers. Two thirds of the population read a newspaper daily, almost everyone a Sunday newspaper and Priestley, in his English journey almost waxes lyrical about local newspapers, just a series of adverts now and almost all online or free. Authors like Agatha Christie wrote for magazines, there were serialisations of books and the written word was everywhere, so I can see where Graves spotted a gap in the market. Obviously, he wanted to make it more exciting, but I think he also makes Claudius himself sympathetic.

Alwynne wrote: "Didn't he base Livia on Tacitus's version of her? Presumably because Livia as 'blight on the nation' made for a meatier story?"

Graves did use Tacitus but large sections of Tacitus never survived. So the main source is Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars (de vita caesarum) written later under Hadrian.

The way classicists today, especially feminist classicists, make sense of these narratives of debauchery and corruption when one of the Roman key political and personal ideals was 'virtus' which links ideas of virtue with masculinity (virility) is to see them as coded. Sexual profligacy and out-of-control women are used as stand-ins for moral and political chaos - and a ruler like Augustus who has no ability to control his wives and daughters, who is such a terrible head of the household or pater familias, is clearly shown to also be a terrible ruler, or pater patria (father of the country).

It's also important that Tacitus was a republican who hated the idea of hereditary monarchy which he saw as politically dangerous so he definitely had an agenda in writing the stories he did. Suetonius I know less about and think he loved the scurrilous stories!

There's that interesting debate within I, Claudius between Livy and Pollio about how to write history: Pollio likes just verified facts, however dull; Livy wants to tell stories, however fictional.

I genuinely don't know how Tacitus, Suetonius et al. were being read in Graves' day - I suspect more literally than now so maybe he did believe that imperial women were all poisoners, murderers and whores!

It's still the case that anyone teaching classics has to start by telling students not to believe I, Claudius - it's been so influential and popular!

Roman Clodia wrote: "It's still the case that anyone teaching classics has to start by telling students not to believe I, Claudius - it's been so influential and popular!"

Yes, I don't know how Tacitus was interpreted but I suppose I was thinking more that Graves picked out the elements of various texts that appealed to him in terms of the kinds of stories he wanted to tell. In that sense his approach doesn't seem that different from those found in a number of contemporary historical novels/films and biopics which can also quite selective, skim over details or emphasize or embellish or use composite figures etc

I wonder though what it is about this novel that makes people assume it's historically accurate? I never assume historical fiction or even some history is accurate but rather an interpretation that will be biased in some way or other. The only difference is that fiction is allowed to stray a little further from reality than non-fiction.

It's also interesting in that although Livia is not likeable here, I'm clearly a bit weird in that I've always quite admired Grave's Livia for her ruthlessness, it's a pleasing antidote to representations of women as helpless or entirely swayed by men.

Maybe because many of us who read Graves in our teens didn't know much about ancient Rome? I certainly didn't. Also the intimate tone of Claudius as narrator gives an aura of verisimilitude, and that sense of an inside story. It is a powerful piece of fiction that sticks in the mind, and it follows an axiom that we are all familiar with - that power corrupts. It's very coherent as a narrative in that it doesn't deviate from or complicate that central contention.

The real Livia seems to have been fascinating in that she worked alongside Augustus in administering the empire, even if she didn't poison anyone! The problem is that there are few sources since women were not deemed important and women with power an anomaly and that she disappears from the historical record for decades at a time. Anthony A. Barrett's Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome is surprisingly dull but makes a rigorous attempt to recuperate what we can know about her from the dearth of material.

How's everyone getting on with this? I didn't realise how long it is. I got a bit bored with all the Germanic tribes rebelling but am back in Rome now and Livia is getting very old...

I've finished. I got confused and thought the story of Messalina would be here but it must be in the second volume. I was wondering how it was going to be dealt with in so few pages left!

I started this and realized I know absolutely nothing about Ancient Rome. I know nothing about the ancient world really, it was not a time and place that grabbed my interest before. Now I want to know.
I have Augustus and I wonder if I should start with this then move on to I, Claudius. I would like to know much more about Ancient Rome, Greece, and that whole area so please recommend novels set in that period.