Claudius

[phil25]

Seneca's "Pumpkinification" certainly demonstrates the way some elite Romans saw their princeps.

 

That said, Claudius' reputation may have re-gained some affection after Nero - who with Agrippina had an interest in side-lining him and his family (Britannicus and Octavia were neither persona grata with Nero and his mother were they?). Work on his temple (near the later Colosseum), was stopped and only re-started under Vespasian.

 

Seneca had odd dealings with the Julio-Claudians being a lover of one sister of Gaius (I forget which - was it Agrippina herself?) and being exiled. So his motives and intent may have been anti-Claudius himself. De-grading Claudius' memory also helped bolster that of his protege.

 

But the fact that Nero's fist five years were hailed by none other that Trajan as the best of any emperor, maybe (at least_ Claudius' declining years were not so hot.

 

I have always been uneasy about Claudius' use of freedmen (Pallas, Narcissus etc) and development of the palatine in the period suggests increasing bureaucracy.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

I don't think Claudius was an oustanding administrator at all. He did ok - nothing to be ashamed of - but he did get pelted by stale crusts by an angry mob as I recall. So it wasn't just the great and good who thought badly of him but his not-so-adoring public too. It was a shame because Claudius had friends in high and low places. He was after all a personable gent by all accounts even if some people weren't too keen to be seen with him.

 

As for the use of freedmen I can see why he did that. They were loyal to him, and claudius was very aware that a plot could have him removed - and killed - at any time. He was nearly bumped off by the senate remember. He also seems to have been somewhat insecure as emperor. No prizes for guessing why!

[DecimusCaesar]

My own personal opinion of Claudius seems to conflict with the image I've seen of him in I, Claudius. In the series he is portrayed as the only sympathetic character and many of his worst vices are excused or not even mentioned. In one scene we see him discussing with senators about building the port at Ostia and he come across as a good adminstrator and a man who's good with money. In real life of course he was responsible for numerous extravagances including the mock floating palace and the grand battle he had conducted near the Fucine lake. He certainly liked playing to the crowds and the common people. Either he was extravagant or the senators despised his constant playing to the plebs for support.

[phil25]

I thought the floating palace (on lake Nemi?) was one of Gaius' projects?

 

Phil

[DecimusCaesar]

Claudius had one built in Ravenna where he floated in and out of the harbour after his return from Britain according to Lane Fox's 'The Classical World'.

[WotWotius]

His other useful building projects included: draining the Potine Marshes; constructing the Aqua Claudia; and erecting a lighthouse at Ostia - for this, Caligula's pleasure boat was used a base.

[Cohort]

well heres a preamble to Claudius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius

 

 

and I have read Levicks book..she paints him as a bit of a buffoon, a "man of the people", a republican, a petulant child overloaded with fallings of inadequacy ( surprise surprise), a sometime wit and not altogether unintelligent ..Seutonius portrays him much the same way

[phil25]

Again, to defend (I suppose) both Gaius and Claudius, I think you'll find that the boat sunk to make the fioundations for the Ostian "pharos" was the ship used to transport an obelisk from Egypt - a feat in itself and the craft was now redundant - rather than a pleasure vessel.

 

Gaius' floating palaces on lake Nemi remained in situ until burned probably in 69, and were excavated and preserved in the 1920s until destroyed in WWII bombing.

 

I sense implicit criticism in comments about flaoting palaces.

 

May I urge a word of caution about judgeing the past by todays standards. In the past, conspicuous expenditure by the elite was a major economic driver and means of passing "wealth" to areas outside the capital. Besides which other, then valid, assumptions may have inspired the building of such edifices and boats. We should, IMHO, view the past by its own standards and not our own, lest we be misled and reach incorrect conclusions.

 

Phil

 

Edited for spelling.

Edited October 21, 2006 by phil25

[spittle]

Those same economic forces are alive and kicking today also. Nothing kickstarts a local economy like a huge building project.

[caldrail]

The mock naval battle at the Fucine lake was an attempt to please the public. Most emperors played to the crowd to some extent, and since claudius was clearly unable to cavort about pretending to be a gladiator then he did the next best thing. Typically for claudius, it was almost a farce.

[DecimusCaesar]

Didn't he also have a 'fight' with a whale in the port at Ostia? If this is true it shows he certainly had a flair for showing off to crowds.

[caldrail]

Thats a new one on me. Where did you read that?

[Pertinax]

Thats a new one on me. Where did you read that?

 

Pliny the Elder: a killer whale popped into the harbour to snaffle some hides from a wrecked gallic merchantman, the Emperor chucked a few javelins and darts at the trapped beast , after it had been carefully corraled.

[phil25]

Before we interpret this incident as another example of Claudius "making a fool of himself", I think we need to examine how it might hve been perceived at the time.

 

Is the US custom of having a celebrity (often I believe the President) throw out the first ball at certain baseball games foolish? The President may no longer be young, not be a good pitcher etc, but the gesture is understood in a certain way.

 

In ancient and some pre-industrial (I was going to type primitive!!) societies, it is important for various reasons for the ruler to be seen to protect, or fertilise, or bring good luck to his people by doing certain SYMBOLIC things. Cutting a ribbon on a new building formally to open it; or turning the first sod, is often done by someone important to signify start or finish even though the celebrity concerned may not be a builder, work in the building etc etc...

 

So with Claudius. I think it highly probable that this SYMBOLIC "killing" of a sea creature (a monster?) which had invaded the state (Ostia harbour) could represent the triumph of Rome over invasion, the sea (one is reminded of Gaius, the sea-shells and his "triumph" over Neptune/Ocean only a handful of years before).

 

Add to that that ancient cultures placed a lot of significance on the borders between the "civilised" and wilderness areas (cultivated land and desert for instance). This creature had crossed the border, he threatened order, was an agent of chaos and had to be slain - who better to do it than the ruler?

 

Throwing spears had terrific symbolism in the ancient world. Alexander hurled a javelin ashore from his boat before landing in Asia, thus symbolically proclaiming his conquest over its current master, Persia.

 

Is there not a current thread on the Roman custom of declaring war, which involved a "spear" which was thrown?

 

After Claudius' death many in the new Government had a vested interest in "spoiling" his reputation and for various reasons. To pick up items like this and distort them would not be impossible. Claudius' personal ineptitude, lack of physicality etc made him an easy target. If Pliny recorded his brother germanicus in his prime as having done the same thing, would we interpret it in the same way?

 

But Nero's symbolic acts have often been picked up and made to appear "antics" in retrospect. But I find it unlikely that successive rulers (even autocrats) do consistently foolish things and court ridicule and humiliation deliberately. There is justification in re-examining at least some of these examples to see if there are not credible alternative explanations 9as i have argued elsewhere in regard to Gaius, and to nero and the Domus Aurea).

 

I don't expect all posters to accept my arguments for reconsideration and review since some seem happy with the traditional (and to me superficial, unsatisfactory and unrealistic interpretations). But maybe I can at least ensure that the alternative is registered and urge others to think anew and "outside the box".

 

Phil

[caldrail]

I think you have to be aware of what the symbol is. In this case Claudius was 'allowed' to chuck spears at a sea-beast both for the religious symbolism and also to emphasise Claudius's manliness. Yes, he too is a bold and skilled hunter.... yeah ok. As far as you argue about the symbolism of spear throwing I do agree. It changes nothing else. After all, Claudius had some friends and if a person of lower station presented the beast for killing, then surely Claudius would smile on him?