Updated Review - Reheard after listening to Holland's book about the family. So fun.


A very good dramatization. If you are a fan of the series, this does not detract from it. It is also interesting to listen to Derek Jacobi as Augustus. It makes a nice bookend.

Engaging read. Portrays the debauchery of the Romans. The characters of Livia, Tiberius and Caligula are portrayed in a way that makes one detest them.

I am baffled that this comes with high praise from no less a writer than Hilary Mantel. Clearly I must have missed something about this book, which I found an uneasy mixture of dullness and depraved violence.

I, Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus This-that-and-the-other (for I shall not trouble you yet with all my titles) who was once, and not so long ago either, known to my friends and relatives and associates as "Claudius the Idiot", or "That Claudius", or "Claudius the Stammerer", or "Clau-Clau-Claudius" or at best as "Poor Uncle Claudius", am now about to write this strange history of my life; starting from my earliest childhood and continuing year by year until I reach the fateful point of change where, some eight years ago, at the age of fifty-one, I suddenly found myself caught in what I may call the "golden predicament" from which I have never since become disentangled.

Edit (26.08.2022): I just found out Robert Graves was bisexual which means that my thoughts on him being homophobic became even more complicated. I guess I'm simply confused now... Maybe he just wanted to write a low-key homophobic character in what he perceived to be historical manner? idk... I'm not going to change the review, just updating the facts...

I'm saying this a lot lately, but... this book is a tough one to rate or review.
Because I actually sort of already read this book next year. But I also didn't. You see, I made a mistake. I thought I was listening to an audiobook, but instead it was abridged, sort of dramatized version that merged both of the novels together (I mean with [b:Claudius the God and His Wife Messalina|52251|Claudius the God and His Wife Messalina (Claudius, #2)|Robert Graves|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1657551049l/52251._SY75_.jpg|4232163]). And I absolutely loved it then, I was so angry with myself for spoiling... myself.
This puts me into awkward position. Because I liked the abridged version more (now I said it, please don't kill me). I feel like such a heretic now... but the thing is, they left all the good things in and cut what makes the story drag away. Which made it swift, really enjoyable and on top of that really stand out some of the themes that I liked. That doesn't mean that original version doesn't have it's merits, I liked the more full fledged version of the events it gave, but the description of the military expeditions sometimes got too descriptive for my taste (I don't mean gory, I mean a heap of politics you can't get straight anyway).

That the crowd always likes a holiday is a common saying, but when the whole year becomes one long holiday, and nobody has time for attending to his business, and pleasure becomes compulsory, then it is a different matter.

When I listened to it for the fist time, I really liked Claudius. I love my underdogs that hide behind their (real or fake) disability so everyone disparages them only for them to come on top later. I'm pretty sure that I, Claudius was to a certain extent an inspiration for [b:The Diabolic|26836910|The Diabolic (The Diabolic, #1)|S.J. Kincaid|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1594310765l/26836910._SY75_.jpg|46870277] and I love the places where these two books overlap. But it also reflects my partial disappointment because in this unabridged version it becomes clear that Claudius actually isn't that smart. He is just lucky to have smart friends who remind him again and again to stay under the radar. I'm not saying he is stupid, but has flaws of the precise brand that irritates me.
That was the first layer of the issue, the second one is even trickier. I, Claudius is written as if it was truly written in Ancient Rome and on top of that the narrator is strictly limited to one person. Which makes the story very special and great in some aspects, but also potentially problematic - especially when you consider that it was NOT written in Ancient Rome. Just read this:

Here I wish to put it on record that I have never at any time of my life practised homosexuality. I do not use Augustus’s argument against it, that it prevents men having children to support the State, but I have always thought it at once pitiful and disgusting to see a full-grown man, a magistrate, perhaps, with a family of his own, slobbering uxoriously over a plump little boy with a painted face and bangles; or an ancient senator playing Queen Venus to some tall young Adonis of the Guards cavalry who tolerates the old fool only because he has money.

Now, that is some first rate homophobia. There is one possibility that it has deeper meaning related to Claudius' own journey

Spoiler

He becomes the exact fool he's describing here for Messalina later.

, but there are more similar nuggets here, so it doesn't really matter. It doesn't even matter that much that it is homophobic. What really matters is that it is absolutely not what ancient roman would have thought. Why? Because the concept of homosexuality didn't even existed! I'm not really a fan of quoting Wikipedia, but I'll make an exception:

It was expected and socially acceptable for a freeborn Roman man to want sex with both female and male partners, as long as he took the penetrative role. The morality of the behavior depended on the social standing of the partner, not gender per se. Both women and young men were considered normal objects of desire, but outside marriage a man was supposed to act on his desires with only slaves, prostitutes (who were often slaves), and the infames. Gender did not determine whether a sexual partner was acceptable, as long as a man's enjoyment did not encroach on another man's integrity. It was immoral to have sex with another freeborn man's wife, his marriageable daughter, his underage son, or with the man himself; sexual use of another man's slave was subject to the owner's permission. Lack of self-control, including in managing one's sex life, indicated that a man was incapable of governing others; too much indulgence in "low sensual pleasure" threatened to erode the elite male's identity as a cultured person.

The distinction is not being made between genders, but between the roles. It doesn't matter where you put your dick as long as no one is putting anything in you. What's most intriguing in all this is the Augustus' argument, I would really love to know if it really exists and if it does then what is it an in which context. My current conclusion is, of course Claudius can be homophobic, but he would certainly used different words and concepts for it. What we see here is homophobia of Graves' own time, which is understandable, but still very inaccurate. Later on, he actually gets this right and uses the word pathicus (which the Czech translation doesn't reflects and uses a word that is completely inappropriate).

"What do they do to you?”
“Oh, practical jokes. Booby traps with buckets of water suspended over doors. And frogs in my bed. Or nasty pathics smelling of myrrh: you know how I loathe frogs and pathics.

Just have to love the equation between frogs and pathics...
Do you think we are finished with this theme? Not quite... Because Graves gives us more - we get a tale of unrequited lesbian love, where the loved party is completely unaware and the loving side completely ridiculed by Claudius' narrative. Then we get a group of people whose gender is ambiguous, they might be eunuchs, they might be intersex, they might be what we would call trans*. (The word spintrians is used, so they were probably male, but...) And once more the narrative treats them quite cruelly - they are Tiberius' sex slaves and on top of that it is clear that Claudius just thinks that they are disgusting. And then this shit happens:

For Tiberius’s painted “orphans” had been banished by Caligula. As a public gesture of pure-mindedness he had sent the whole crew of them off to Sardinia, a most unhealthy island, and told them to labour honestly for their living as road-makers. Some of them just lay down and died when picks and shovels were put into their hands, but the rest were whipped into work, even the daintiest of them. Soon they had a stroke of luck. A pirate vessel made a sudden raid, captured them, and carried them off to Tyre, where they were sold as slaves to rich Eastern profligates.

Excuse me, what?! They had a stroke of luck?! I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.
And then there is the queer coding of the villains. The most obvious case being Caligula who is very effeminate and likes to cross-dress, even though he seems to be mostly interested in women unlike Tiberius.
These things wouldn't be as problematic if there was some other layer of the book that would show us that those characters are just products of their time (which wouldn't be accurate, but at least something...), but that's not possible because of the way this story is told - which is applicable to more of the themes I had issues with, but those I feel are mostly historically accurate, so it's even harder to form a definitive opinion. Slavery and propagation of genocide are on the top of that list...

As for German cowardice, all barbarous people are cowards. If Germans ever become civilized 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 civilized. Germanicus thought that there was none. Whether his policy of extermination was justified or not (certainly it was not the usual Roman policy with frontier tribes) depends on the answer to the first question. Of course, the captured Eagles had to be won back, and Hermann had shown no mercy, after the defeat of Varus, when he overran the province ; and Germanicus, who was a most gentle and humane man, disliked general massacre so much that he must have had very good reasons for ordering it.

There was just a lot in this book that I didn't have the stomach for, this passage being the prime example, but also just the casual mentions about torturing of the slaves, the casual massacres of animals and the overall cruelty.
All of this doesn't mean I disliked the book, I really enjoyed it. It took me longer to read it than I thought and I'm not sure why that happened, but I still enjoyed it. I liked style this book is written in, the interesting mesh of dry historical book and humour. I loved reading about Ancient Rome, I'm especially fascinated by the different way the family works. The system of simply making people your family (by adopting) instead of trying to put your family into the positions of power (it's of course more of the mix in practice) is simply so intriguing and so estranged to our way of thinking, but I really like it. Even if this book shows us more how it doesn't work out than how it does.

For my experience as a historian is that more documents survive by chance than by intention.

That brings me to Livia, who I really loved. There were places where I thought she was turning into misogynistic stereotypes, but I think that part actually turned out pretty well. Even though I still thing that a book written from her perspective would be really cool - or maybe some mesh of her perspective and Claudius' it could make the story really interesting.
I feel like the discussion about female characters would be pointless. Most of them are really despicable or just entirely useless and then there are the few who are normal/sympathetic. (Calpurnia a prostitute which is actually pretty special now that I think about it, and Agrippina. And maybe some more of those who have no actual part in the story.) Which I guess, is very period appropriate even if a bit painful to read. But now I'm a little bit stuck on the fact that Graves' most virtuous and sympathetic female figure is a sex worker, like... well done, I guess.

Give me the basket. The clean parts will be useful for household lists, and all sorts of things. Waste not, want not.

I feel like, I'm starting to come around in circles, so I'll stop here. There is a reason why this book is a classic and why it was and partially still is so popular. It's great, it's well written, educational, with interesting characters. But some of the parts didn't age well. Those are mostly small parts and if you are not sensitive you may as well overlook them. But I don't think we should overlook them. I think we should acknowledge them and talk about them and yes, just enjoy the book if we want. And there is a lot to enjoy here.
I'll probably read the second book, even though I think I'll enjoy it less then the fist one (you know, Claudius is really stupid in it which is hard for me to bear).

I thought 'when in Rome, I should read a book about Rome!' So I looked it up and this was supposed to be the best. I didn't really know what to expect given the description.
I was nervous it was going to be hard to read and old fashioned but it wasn't at all. It has quite a casual, gossip-y tone.
And the content! The things that went on in Rome were just outrageous and unbelievable, which make this book hugely entertaining, as well as informative.

I thoroughly enjoyed the book.

Truly loved this one; in fact I often think about Mark who selected this one. He - Mark - not Claudius - has since retreated into his home, swalllowed in a thicket on the way to Charlestown. He worries about the grid collapsing as any sane person should. He also worries about surveillance from the Feds: sigh.

Graves situates C dramatically with aplomb, the decorum and debauchery vie in this rairified air. Everyone is terrified of the rabble. C is a patient man. This is an asset. He also lives in fortunate times and knows when to act.

This was a fun way to review my history of the late Roman empire through a first person historical fiction piece. It was a clever idea to take Claudius, the historian emperor and turn his story into a history/tale. I enjoyed it a lot, and I found that I only knew a tip of the iceberg about the problems the Roman empire had. pshew! Definitely a must read!