Claudius

[Primus Pilus]

I am in the middle of writing 'Claudius' for the Roman history section of the site and I couldn't help but stop to think about it.

 

Claudius perhaps more than all others is villified by the ancient sources, but yet generally loved by modern sources.

 

Anyone care to discuss why?

[P.Clodius]

Claudius is a very interesting character. He shelled out LARGE $ to the army and Praetorians upon ascension. I think I read 15,000 cesterces per Praetorian someplace. Which leads to the thought that he was possibly on the fringes of the plot to assassinate Gaius. His reign was not without scandal, his wifes were attrocious, he was said to be dominated by his Freedmen. But he did play an active part in the courts leading some to critisize for micromanagement. Claudius was deified after death so calling into question the people that were around him indirectly critisizes the God. A slant attack.

[Primus Pilus]

Indeed. Claudius is villified, likely for his physical 'deformities' but mostly for his social behavior. The power of his wives and freedmen certainly were a revulsion to the aristocracy. What was also completely hated by them was the inclusion of Gauls into the Senate and the doling out of citizenship to 'Romanized' Celts.

 

I contend that this act alone (the conquest of Britain notwithstanding) was among the single smartest imperial moves of the early principate. Even though Gaul and Hispania were largely Romanized already, this ensured that the Celtic aristocracy would keep their 'tribes' in check and also offer hope to other provincials that the benefits of citizenship were not far off.

[Guest spartacus]

To use a modern expression :

 

There is no news like bad news !

 

Scandal, bad news, intrigue all concepts that sell newspapers, Claudius is certainly a "colourful" character and still attracts interest, which the modern public just love to read about!

 

A decade ago, the BBC ran an award winning series entitled I,Claudius which enjoyed high viewing figures, that is why to answer your post that he is popular to this day!

 

During his time, Romans may have viewed his lifestyle as too outrageous and rebuked him for it, and their writings left us in no doubt as to what they thought of him

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Robert Graves portrayal of Claudius was rather false. he was much more cruel.

[Guest spartacus]

As I recall it was broadcast before the "watershed" and the BBC had very strict guidelines so it may have been toned down somewhat at the expense of historical fact

[Guest Scanderbeg]

No no the books in general potrayed Claudius as this nice little Republican Empror trying his best to just survive and restore order to Rome. Graves tried to show weigh the two different givernments(Republican and Empirial) at the expense of Historical accuracy. The samething with his message of femenism and female power in the Empire.(check the media section and my topic on I Claudius to read my longer analysis) His potrayal of Livia was enitirely based on "word of mouth". Rumours with little

evidence in them. I do believe that Claudius as an Emperor was now put in the highest and best seat. Something he was not used to. Whether or not Livia trully did those murders isn't important. However he lived through death after death and whether or not done by poison and murder or from disease(Germanicus), there was a damn whole lot of reason to be suspecious. He spent his whole life out of the picture and survived so imagine now how you would feel if suddenly, not only were you part of the picture but were in the middle. Where everyone wants to be. I do believe that is actually historical because we are all like that. I don't believe though that he was that republican and that caring. He LOVED gladiatorial events and always wanted to see the loser be killed. He held many trials outside of the public eye in closed doors. These trials almost always ended up bad for the defendant. In the book Claudius explains this by saying how it was Messalina who did all this. But execution was basically one of the only punishments he used. There was no prison time in the Empire. Just that. My example is the whole trial he had after Messalina had her party.

Another thing, he completely ignored his son Britannicus. Many people say this was because he thought Britannicus was Caligula's son. Whatever it was, he went to Nero, who was never even a good candidate.

 

Another pick I have with Graves was his portrayal of Tiberius. But that a whole nother park game and right now I don't have much time to post everything.

[P.Clodius]

Yes, in reality his reaign was actually quite bloody. I think 34 Senators bit the dust during his stint

[Primus Pilus]

Sure, I understand and largely agree with your assessment of Graves, Skenderbeg. (Though I still find them highly entertaining) However, my main point is that I think Claudius did an excellent job as the head of the Principate (except for his selection of heir). Cruelty was nothing unusual, especially as it related to the struggles of the aristocracy. Its difficult to say for sure, but the people seemingly liked him. At least he was deified without too much complaint.

[P.Clodius]

This is a pretty good overview

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figu.../claudius.shtml

[Primus Pilus]

keep in mind that the deification attempt of Tiberius was met with complete horror by both the Senate and the people, and thus was not pursued. In order for Nero's 'disdainful' deification of Claudius to go through, it still would've need the general support of the population. Its certainly difficult to determine the exact circumstances.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

The lower class also loved Commodus. Plus you would be happy if after years of tyranny order was finally restored to your home. Im not saying that Claudius was a bad emperor I just disagree with the image of innocence that many place on him.

[phil25]

Surely, the point about Claudius is that he comes across as being human.

 

Whether it is right is, of course, another matter, but to modern eyes he seems understandbale.

 

Augustus was a chameleon politically and remains enigmatic in the metamorphosis from bloody, revolutionary youth to sage and aged ruler. Tiberius is patrician, unreadable, aloof, cold. Gaius was inane, his acts seemigly inexplicable in ordinary terms. Nero grows into an incestuous, matricidal monster. One could go on.

 

Out of this bunch Claudius emerges as almost loveable - and he has charcater, even without Graves' brilliance. His physical disabilities; his studiousness and ability to survive, the fear he suffers under his nephew; his troubles with his wives; and his way of becoming empror, almost reluctantly it seems, are endearing. Above all, his personal, direct link with Britain (he actually visited the place!) made him of interest to influential British classicists.

 

Another point in Claudius' favour, so far as writing about him is concerned, is that his relatively long life spans a fascinating period. Graves stretches it, with regard to Claudius' parentage, from the aftermath of Actium to the accession of nero. It is ALL there - half of Suetonius, almost all of Tacitus... who could ask for more.

 

But it is, I think, to Graves that Claudius owes his C20th fascination generally.

 

On screen, even before the BBC I Claudius, this princeps had a good run.

 

The snippets we have of Charles Laughton's portrayal in Korda's abortive I Claudius film (c 1937?) emphasise vulnerability, compassion, patience and sympathy - all very modern vitrues. Laughton, who found the part difficult, is said to have gained inspiration from Edward VIII's abdication broadcast, which says a lot to me about his approach.

 

He is sympathetically played by Barry Jones in Demetrius and the Gladiators (a Victor Mature epic, and sequel to The Robe) in the 50s. In the 60s, Freddie Jones was bumbling and brilliant in The Caesars - and won awards for his portrayal. Then we had Jacobi in the 70s.

 

Was this the historical Claudius? IMHO almost certainly not. But then I take the view, with which others here disagree, I know, that the mind set of the Roman is virtually unreadable to us. We thus always interpret them as ancient replicas of ourselves.

 

To take just two examples from Claudius' long career and life:

 

- what did he think/know around the time of Gaius' assassination? was he a quasi-republican? Or was that a politcal guise? Did he want the throne or not? Did he see potential or danger as primary?

 

- what was messalini up to in her strange marriage while Claudius was at Ostia? How did he react? What was his relationship with this woman? How did it affect him thereafter?

 

All these questions can be answered with reference to modern psychology, of course. But was that the way the Romans thought and acted?

 

Phil

[caldrail]

I am in the middle of writing 'Claudius' for the Roman history section of the site and I couldn't help but stop to think about it.

 

Claudius perhaps more than all others is villified by the ancient sources, but yet generally loved by modern sources.

 

Anyone care to discuss why?

 

In that period there was definitely a fashion for the 'body beautiful'. Claudius certainly wasn't. Nor was he of noble stature. That was galling to many senators who would consider themselves above him. Its also true his behaviour wasn't quite as refined or sophisticated as expected. He was something of an embarrasing bore, given to excrutiating unfunny jokes at socially awkward moments. Had he not been born into the royal family, Claudius would never have been a success in public life. Lets face it, the only reason Claudius made consul was because Caligula wanted to make a fool of him and upset the upstart senators.

 

We love him because we sense his ordinary vulnerability, his intelligence, and some sympathy for a terrified man pulled from behind a curtain by rampaging praetorians and thrust into center-stage against his will.

 

I am aware of the theory he plotted to rule. Possibly, but I don't think events were unfolding at his desire. More likely he would have been terrified of being discovered too early if indeed he was plotting. I really don't think he was.

 

In one sense he's a clown. He stutters, limps, makes social goofs, and embarrases everyone. On the other, he's an able ruler with a weakness for clever women. The leader of the known world was led by his nose.

Edited October 14, 2006 by caldrail

[caldrail]

Having read my reply I've realised just how similar my views are to Robert Graves. Well I won't apologise for that because he read the same sources as me. What I would like to point out though are some pertinent reasons why the 'I Claudius' view is wrong.

 

Robert Graves puts Claudius as the reluctant hero of his tale, a man with genuine humanity and a sympathetic character for the reader. In reality Claudius wasn't so nice. He would sometimes arrange private torture sessions where he could study the faces of the victims. A sadist? Sort of. Remember its likely that Claudius had been bullied when he was younger, and his mother had spared no affection for him.

 

His accession to power wasn't so clear cut as the BBC serial suggests. After the death of Caligula, enough senators were willing to proclaim Claudius an enemy of the state. The principate was hunky-dory under Augustus, but Tiberius? Too many senators had suffered under Sejanus or saw their friends lost. Caligula came to power with many senatorial hopes but all they got was an immature youth with a nasty sense of humour. These men wanted a republic again, to return to time when they wielded power amongst themselves. Had the praetorians not supported Claudius (they had no choice - it was the lower paid regular army or the corn dole otherwise) he would have been executed.

 

Also it must be said that despite his intelligent rule Claudius made some gaffes. He lacked finesse and wisdom. Indeed, he was desperate for credibility that he sent the legions to Britain. It was also why he was at the head of the legions during the last moments of the campaign, pretending that his presence had made the difference.

 

I also sense that Claudius had a problem with his personal gravitas. People didn't seem to jump when he said frog. I think that many people saw Claudius as a meal ticket. Sejanus had already used him to bring his own family closer to royal status. Caligula had used him as a butt for his humour but also because as consul he was no impediment to Caligulas whim. Messalina (his third wife) became contemptuous of him and later married a younger man as a prelude to deposing Claudius. Aggripina the Younger used him shamelessly to get Nero onto the throne and thus rule Rome herself through him.

 

Therefore it wasn't just his physical imperfections that Rome villified. It was his lack of majesty, his lack of steadfastness, and the lack of justification for him sitting on the throne in the first place.