Customer Reviews

Claudius

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Barbara Levick's 'Claudius' is a good resource to use when falling under the Claudian spell of such works as Graves' 'I, Claudius' and 'Claudius the God', or the 'I, Claudius' BBC production. This will help put a proper historical perspective on the man and emperor, Tiberius Claudius Nero Germanicus. Get used to the panoply of names-each noble Roman shares many names with the others in his family, thus making history often confusing.

Among the things Graves' readers might miss (and certainly the television-only set will miss) is that Claudius was married four times, had five children, and was much more less of a dolt in these matters than one would realise.

Levick explores some of the intrigues of the Julii Caesares as well as the Claudii Nerones; she explores the history from all angles. She looks to the politics and the sociological realities of family and court life to explain what ambitions Claudius really had, and what he might actually look forward to accomplishing in his life. 'Seneca's scathing comment on Claudius after his death was that `nobody thought he had ever been born'. In connection with this a remark of his mother Antonia recorded by Suetonius may be relevant. He claims that Antonia used to speak of her son (she need only have said it once for it to be presented as a leitmotiv!) as `a monstrosity of a human being, one that Nature began and never finished'. Antonia's hostility to her `unfinished' youngest child was probably intensified when she almost immediately lost her husband, and, a quarter of a century later, her even more brilliant elder son: now primacy was lost to her family.'

Levick explores Claudius' childhood and education, which continued past the usual age, given his apparent deformities. His tutors attended him well past the usual age of tutelage. She spend a little time also writing of his princeps under Tiberius and Gaius Caligula, which shows he was not universally ignored or despised, and so his accession, though unlikely, was by no means improbable.

C.E. Stevens makes the claim that Claudius was the first Roman Emperor; Augustus put together a bundle of offices and powers, which Tiberius variously held and let lapse; Caligula informed the senate of his accession and took all honours almost instantly, so perhaps Stevens is incorrect in his assessment. However, Claudius helped to formalise this automatic transfer of powers and offices as a right of imperial position, such that all future emperors, upon taking the name Caesar as a title (Claudius took it as a name, the prestigious cognomen of his illustrious ancestor) would also instantly have the array of offices and powers at their disposal.

Levick continues to explore Roman society and body politic under Claudius by segment: social classes (senate, equestrian order, and aristocracy), the legal machinery (with which he was particularly interested in, and made a shift from tradition to that of individual welfare, a novel approach for the day), finance and the economy (including Claudius' ambitious public works projects), and she gives particular attention to Claudius' military campaigns and progresses, especially his triumphant battles in Britain.

Levick concludes with an examination of the legacy of Claudius over the ages. Beginning with Nero's accession speech to the Senate, drafted by Seneca (who hated Claudius) which listed in great number and detail all of Claudius' failings, to the uneven revisions during the later Flavians (who took seriously Claudius' social legislation and deification at the expense of Nero's memory), then later historians, then being dropped from all but a few official functions by the third century. Fifth and sixth century historians such as Orosius and Malalas showed Claudius through the lens of their own agenda, to show God at work in the world through his clemency and care for stricken cities. By the time of George Syncellus in the eighth century, he was portrayed as a bloodthirsty man with some courage (given his battles in Britain, Germany and Thrace).

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Claudius' reign has been revised in view once more, by work such as that of Mommsen, Momigliano, and others studying his achievements, proclaiming him as the emperor who was `the great establisher of norms', and paying particular attention to his organisational ability with regard to civil and military matters.

Claudius, alas, was a usurper, and seen as such all through his reign, and even after (often as a model by which others used the army to seize power). He was never really secure. But he was successful against high odds, and a source of stability in a era which needed such.

Ms. Levick's biography of the emperor is to be recommended as an excellent and in-depth study of the limits of any Roman emperor's power. She tends to paint a somewhat untraditional and cynical view of the emperor, even suggesting that he played a part in the assasination of Caligula. In Levick's eyes, Claudius is a politician struggling to retain the very basis of his power, his ultimate failure being his inability to command respect in the eyes of his contemporaries or posterity. Some of her views are certainly matters of interpretation; indeed, it seems that she sometimes misrepresents ancient authors to strengthen her opinion of the Caesar; it should be remembered that Levick's Claudius is not THE Claudius, but a new and somewhat untraditional interpretation of one of history's most enigmatic figures.

Claudius was written to be a biographical work on the life little-known Claudius, by means of compiling the scattered primary sources that offer a window into the life of the ancient Emperor. Relevant to all who research Claudius or the works of his freedmen, Levick presents the most recent extensive work on his life, along with new historiographical interpretations that without, one's research cannot be effective. Levick, being a well-known Roman historian, has written many great works on the Emperors in biographical form, her most recent being this very book, written in 1990, fairly new considering the ancient topic.
Many of her sources come from the primary documents of Tacitus and Suetonius, along with other historians such as Josephus and Seneca, while her secondaries relate many of the great works on Claudius, hers being the first in fifty years. Personal research has revealed that she has not wronged these historians in her interpretations of their written work, presenting a reliable account of the life of Claudius. In regards to her organization, she is unique as she does not follow chronological order, but divides the book into sections of his reign. While recording his reign, she covers it in the aspects that her sources allow, containing greatly to his reign, and little to his life before Though I would recommend having an ample background on Roman history, as Levick sometimes takes for granted her vast knowledge of the time, all who research Claudius would be remiss rule out this book.

This book was an excellent overview of one of the critical emperors during the formation of the early Christian church. Profesor Levick provided new insights into one of the lesser known Emperors, and some excellent suggestions as to why he might have taken some of the actions that he did. This would be an excellent source for anyone studying early Christianity as well as roman emperors.

I really wish that I could recommend this book stronger. Claudius was a very interesting person, that much is clear, but Ms. Levick does a horrible job of it. As one previous reviewer noted, she continually refers to Claudius as THE usurper. The reason for using such a strongly negative word in association with Claudius isn't clear. Certainly he could be considered a usurper, although given the circumstances of his predecessor Caligula's death it's hard to state who had more of a right than him, but to refer to him as such constantly is annoying. It's even stranger considering that her presentation of him is generally positive even though she seems to work hard to use negative terms in describing him. Now, I'm not complaining because her view of Claudius is different than mine. I don't know many biographies where I agree with all the interpretations. It just seems that she doesn't put enough effort into finding out who he truly was. Or perhaps she has, and just doesn't present it well. All I know is that it seems a jumbled mess.

The other thing about this book is that it, in common with a number of other scholarly books, is divided into two basic sections. The first part from 1-80 is a basic narrative of his personal life. By this I mean his marriages, his family, and the many conspiracies against his life. This would seem to be the more interesting section, but she never mentions anything outside this limited topic. As you can imagine, it's confusing to have her refer to major events such as the conquest of Britain without explaining anything about it. And that reference only came about in relation to one of the senators who was executed. The section on the invasion comes only in the second section of the book. I know that scholars like to divide a reign up into sections but in what purports to be, in part, a biography it interferes with the narrative. Some mention of the major events of his reign need to be placed in the first section just so that it can be understood where they stand in relation to the other events. It doesn't help that her dry style is particularly hard to work through. The second star is only there because this is the only biography that I could find on this interesting man. If a better one comes out I may revise my opinion downwards.

Its a pretty well written book, but Levick seems to even mangle english to establish her view. She keeps calling Claudius a usurper. In fact she calls him THE Usurper. But isnt a usurper someone who takes the throne through force and has no right to it? That is a lot different from the last surviving adult male of the imperial family inheriting it when there isnt a will. The book is very cynical in this and other ways.

While admirably accessible even to the lay reader, Barbara Levick's work has the unfortunate quality of total unrelatedness to fact. It is baffling how she attempts to justify some of the claims she makes here, aside from cryptic comments to the effect that Claudius 'would never have intended' or 'would be out of character' with regard to some putative intention. Perhaps Levick has access to the lost histories of Claudius, but if so, she should surely do them justice in her bibliography.

I found this book to be poorly written. Levick seems to try to liven up the soporific narrative by inserting modern phrases and words that appear to be out of place. For example; it seems that there were a lot of "hooligans" in ancient Rome. As to the historical facts, they appear to be well researched but I think that their presentation in thematic chapters rather than in linear fashion is due to the narrative shortcomings of the author. Overall I found the book to be a disappointment.