CALIFORNIA ST ATE UNIVERSITY SAN MARCOS

THESIS SIGNATURE PAGE

THESIS SUBJvlITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILUvlENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

MASTER OF ARTS

IN

HISTORY

THESIS TITLE: Feminae Horribiles Depictions of Women in BBC's/, Claudius (1976)

AUTHOR: Melissa Leanne Haire

DATE OF SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE: May 4, 2021

THE THESIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE THESIS COMMITTEE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTSFOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY.

Dr. Darel Engen THESIS COMMITTEE CHAlR SIGNATURE DATE

Dr. Jill Watts Jill Watts (May 12, 2021 23:13 PDT) THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER SIGNATURE DATE

Dr. Julia Lewandoski THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER SIGNATURE DATE

Feminae Horribiles:

Depictions of Women in BBC’s I, Claudius (1976)

Melissa Leanne Haire

Haire ii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………. iii

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………… iv

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………… 1

Historiography……………………………………………………………………………… 3

Ancient Rome as Seen on TV……………………………………………………………... 14

The Women of I, Claudius………………………………………………………………… 16

The First Empress of Rome: Livia………………………………………………………… 17

Like Grandmother, Like Granddaughter: Livilla………………………………………….. 25

The Adulteress: Messalina in the Ancient Sources………………………………………… 27

“A rigorous, almost masculine despotism:” Agrippinilla in the Ancient Sources………… 30

Different Interpretations: Depictions of Men in I, Claudius………………………………. 33

The Less Murderous and Less Active Women of I, Claudius……………………………… 35

The Matron: Antonia………………………………………………………………...... 35

The First Daughter of Rome: Julia in the Ancient Sources…………………………………. 37

Morally Upstanding: Agrippina in the Ancient Sources…………………………………….. 42

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………… 44

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………. 46

Haire iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Darel Engen for encouraging me to pursue a master’s degree

and for his continuous support, constructive criticism, and valuable insights as I worked through this process. I would like to thank Dr. Jill Watts for her unwavering support and insightful

comments on my thesis and digital project. I would also like to thank Dr. Julia Lewandoski for her constructive and helpful comments on my work. To my fantastic cohort of fellow students who made these last four years easier to get through, thank you.

I would like to thank my family and friends who were always willing to listen to me ramble about the Ancient Roman Empire and would look at drafts of my work whenever I asked.

Much appreciation to my coworkers who always inquired about my well-being and offered words of encouragement as I worked through the program.

Most of all, I would like to thank my parents, Belinda and Wayne. Without their support,

I never would have made it this far.

Haire iv

Abstract

In this thesis, I argue that the depiction of Augustan women in I, Claudius (1976) does, at

times, offer hints of slightly more enlightened and modern views of women that cannot be found

in the ancient sources; however, the show still tends to stereotype its female characters in a

manner not unlike that perpetrated by the men of ancient, patriarchal Rome. It villainizes women

by portraying them as obsessive supporters of monarchical government and thus against both the

Republic lauded by the ancient elite sources and the democracy highly valued by Americans.

Non-villainous women are otherwise reduced to little more than objects meant to further the plot

rather than as active subjects within the plot. Based on Robert Graves’ novels I, Claudius (1934)

and Claudius the God (1935), which in turn drew on the ancient Roman writers, Tacitus,

Suetonius, and Dio Cassius, the series covers the period of the early Roman Empire beginning in

24 BCE during the reign of Augustus and ending with Claudius’ death in 54 CE. With little

credible primary source information available regarding the women of the early Roman Empire,

and that solely from the perspective of men of the Roman elite, the producers of I, Claudius

reveal their own biases against women when they readily and uncritically accept these hostile

views of women.

Keywords: history, women, ancient, Rome, television, I, Claudius

Haire 1

Introduction

Ancient Rome has long been a popular subject for modern filmmakers and audiences.

The popular BBC miniseries I, Claudius (1976) provided viewers a glimpse into Roman imperial

life and, at the same time, reflected some of their own modern realities. With the generally scant

amount of primary source material available to those behind such television representations of

the ancient past, it is easy to see how the producers’ own biases in interpreting the ancient

sources can influence these modern reproductions. This is especially true in how producers chose

to portray ancient Roman women, whom history often ignores or treats harshly. The choices

these producers make in filling these gaps or in readily accepting hostile, patriarchal caricatures

of women that are of dubious historical veracity means that these shows say as much about

contemporary society as they do about ancient Roman society.

This thesis will cover the women featured in BBC’s I, Claudius (1976), set during the

early Roman Empire. I, Claudius features an elderly Claudius, the fourth emperor of Rome,

recounting the history of the Roman imperial family beginning with the reign of Augustus in 24

BCE and ending with Claudius’ death in 54 CE. The series originally aired in the United

Kingdom in 1976 to critical acclaim and subsequently aired in the United States on PBS’s

Masterpiece Theatre series in 1977-1978. I, Claudius was immensely popular with American

audiences and its impact on modern television continues to be felt. The series was included in

Time magazine’s “All-TIME 100 TV Shows” in 2007 and gained many of its actors international

recognition.1 Mary McNamara of the Los Angeles Times argues that I, Claudius

didn’t just push the limits of “acceptable” television, it completely changed television, redefining the boundaries of the genre’s possibilities and its ambitions. With its complex characters and multi-toned narrative, not to mention the high quality of writing, performance and direction, ‘I, Claudius’ established a timeline that would eventually

1 James Poniewozik, “All-TIME 100 TV Shows,” Time Magazine, September 6, 2007, https://time.com/collection/all-time-100-tv-shows/ Haire 2

include the rise of HBO and all its cable competitors. This in turn expanded the palette and quality of network drama and, most recently, persuaded AMC executives to begin original programming.2

Jace Lacob of the Daily Beast argues that

The success of I, Claudius, both in terms of critical acclaim and commercial triumph, continues to spawn successors. HBO’s short-lived Rome (which overlapped somewhat, towards the end, with some of I, Claudius’ plot), Starz’s blood-spurting Spartacus, and Showtime’s The Borgias all owe a huge debt to this remarkable production; revolving around actual historical events, both shows—laden with graphic sex and violence—are clear descendants of I, Claudius’ vast legacy.3

I, Claudius undoubtedly left its mark in the world of dramatic television.

Generally, the representations of Augustan women in I, Claudius perpetuates negative

stereotypes of women that have endured since ancient times and which reveal modern male

anxieties about women that protect the continuation of patriarchy. Moreover, how the show

chose to portray men, about whom there tends to be more primary source evidence available,

further reveals gender biases. While the depiction of Augustan women in I, Claudius does, at

times, offer hints of slightly more enlightened, modern views of women that cannot be found in

the ancient sources, the show still tends to stereotype its female characters. It villainizes them by

portraying them as obsessive supporters of monarchical government, just as the ancient, elite

Roman male writers did, and thus against the democracy highly valued by Americans. Non-

villainous women are otherwise reduced to little more than objects meant to further the plot

rather than as active agents within the plot.

I will begin with a historiographical review of both primary and secondary source

literature. The majority of the information concerning the early Roman Empire, beginning with

2 Mary McNamara, “Critic’s Notebook: ‘I, Claudius’ left its bloody, sinister mark on TV drama,” Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2012, https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2012-may-06-la-ca-critics- notebook-claudius-20120506-story.html 3 Jace Lacob, “PBS’ ‘I, Claudius’ Still Captivates With its Taut Drama,” Daily Beast, July 13, 2017, https://www.thedailybeast.com/pbs-i-claudius-still-captivates-with-its-taut-drama Haire 3 the reign of Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, in 27 BCE comes from the authors Tacitus,

Suetonius, and Dio Cassius. While these are considered primary sources, these authors were all writing about events that they did not, in fact, personally witness. It is important to analyze the socio-political context in which these authors were writing and how this shaped their perspective.

These sources are, themselves, interpretations of past events and their objectivity, or lack thereof, must be scrutinized. This section will also include an overview of Robert Graves’ background and how this influenced his writing of I, Claudius and Claudius the God. As the novels are also

“historical” sources for the show, understanding the context in which they were written and

Graves’ own biased interpretation of the ancient sources is critical. This will be followed by a review of secondary source literature outlining this study’s significance in the fields of film history, feminist film theory, the ancient world on film, and women’s history. A discussion regarding the cultural and political circumstances of 1970s America will contextualize I,

Claudius as it was received by its American audience. Finally, I will analyze several major female characters from the I, Claudius television series, examining how their portrayals compare with the ancient sources and with Graves’ depiction.

Historiography

Primary Source Literature Ancient historiography varies significantly from modern historiography. Ancient historians focused on military and political affairs and “great men” while saying little about the social and economic lives of common people. These historians aimed to write epic narratives that tend to make little mention of the sources used to gather the information. Furthermore, though these sources are considered primary sources, many of these historians were writing about events long after they occurred. Haire 4

The ancient primary source material regarding women is extremely limited and the

credibility of the material that does exist must be scrutinized. The surviving historical accounts

concerning the Augustan age were all written by men decades after the fact. As they provide by

far the most information about the Julio-Claudian Dynasty, the three main authors who will be

discussed in relation to I, Claudius are Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius. Some scholars label

Tacitus as the most reliable historian for this period as he provides the earliest and most

“serious” account.4 Suetonius is credited with providing the most “colorful” account of the

Augustan age in his decidedly non-historical biography, The Twelve Caesars.5 Unlike Tacitus,

Suetonius did not shy away from including vulgar and scandalous stories about the emperors.

Despite standing outside the traditions of ancient historiography, Suetonius had access to the

imperial archives while serving under the emperors Trajan and Hadrian, allowing him to make

use of many original sources, such as Augustus’ correspondence.6 Dio’s Roman History was

written a century after the Augustan age. In John Carter’s introduction to Dio’s Roman History

he discusses the rules ancient historians were expected to follow, pointing out that one such rule

“was to have assimilated one’s material and, so to speak, homogenized it, so that a smooth,

continuously flowing narrative emerged without citation of sources or argument over the true

version of events. Thus it is that we know virtually nothing about the sources Dio used for the

reign of Augustus.”7 Furthermore, Ronald Mellor states that “like other ancient historians, Dio

4 Michael Grant, “Translator’s Introduction” in The Annals of Imperial Rome (London, England: Penguin Books, 1996), 7-24 and Ronald Mellor, “Tacitus” in The Historians of Ancient Rome: An Anthology of the Major Writings, ed. Ronald Mellor (London, England: Routledge, 2013), 289-290. 5 J. B. Rives, “Introduction” in The Twelve Caesars, trans. Robert Graves (London, England: Penguin Books, 2007), xvii-xli and Ronald Mellor, “Suetonius” in The Historians of Ancient Rome: An Anthology of the Major Writings, ed. Ronald Mellor (London, England: Routledge, 2013), 395. 6 Ibid. 7 John Carter, “Introduction” in The Roman History: The Reign of Augustus, trans. Ian Scott Kilvert (London, England: Penguin Books, 1987), 21. Haire 5

included fictitious speeches and overly dramatized scenes.”8 Though Dio’s Roman History is the

best surviving continuous account of the Augustan age, the issues associated with the work

cannot be overstated.

These authors were undoubtedly influenced by their own life circumstances and the

patriarchal Roman society that surrounded them. Judith P. Hallett describes the shortcomings of

such ancient source material on Roman women, including “their focus on male subjects, the elite

background of the male authors and audience, and their biased and self-interested

representations.”9 She further explains that, since it is virtually impossible to know the “real”

lives of ancient Roman women, studying the “varying male ideals, expectations, and

assumptions informing Roman women’s representations” is a potentially useful avenue for better understanding these women as it “seems likely that such notions would inform the actual lives of women in a male-controlled social environment such as the patriarchal milieu of classical

Rome.”10 This social and cultural context is extremely important when reading and interpreting

these sources and is something filmmakers, who are not professional historians, might not be aware of or choose to ignore because it does not suit their vision.

In addition to being influenced by the Roman patriarchy, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio were likewise influenced by the economic and political climate of their time as well as their own standing in society. Tacitus was a member of the provincial upper class who enjoyed “the highest metropolitan post, the consulship… and the governorship of the great province of western

Anatolia (Asia) – the climax of a senator’s career.”11 As a member of high-ranking Roman

8 Ronald Mellor, “Cassius Dio” in The Historians of Ancient Rome: An Anthology of the Major Writings, ed. Ronald Mellor (London, England: Routledge, 2013), 491. 9 Judith P. Hallett, “Perspectives on Roman Women” in From Augustus to Nero: The First Dynasty of Imperial Rome, ed. Ronald Mellor (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1990), 132. 10 Hallett, “Perspectives on Roman Women,” 135. 11 Grant, “Translator’s Introduction,” 7. Haire 6

society, Tacitus primarily focused on other elite members of society, namely emperors and

senators, to the exclusion of women and those in lower classes. Furthermore, it is entirely

possible that Tacitus’ descriptions of certain emperors were colored by his own experiences as a

senator. As Michael Grant argues, Tacitus’ hostile attitude towards Tiberius “reflects the fact

that, when he wrote his major works, he had recently lived through the equally or even more

somber and – to senators – terrifying last years of Domitian.”12 Much like modern writers are

influenced by their own circumstances, it would have been exceedingly difficult for ancient

writers to avoid such biases from pervading their own work.

Other scholars have studied Tacitus’ use of rumor and innuendo in his writing and

provide further reason to question Tacitus’ credibility as an historian. Inez Scott Ryberg has

argued that Tacitus regularly employs literary devices intended to guide the reader’s interpretation of the facts when said facts do not line up with Tacitus’ own prejudiced view.13

Similarly, Donald Sullivan analyzes “the various grammatical forms and devices Tacitus

employs to express doubt and, especially, to imply a preference between alternative

explanations.”14 As will be shown, Tacitus often draws on difficult to verify rumors and gossip

in his scathing portraits of imperial women, revealing his own misogynistic views. The inability

of the producers of I, Claudius to recognize these biases and inaccuracies, or their choice to

12 Grant, “Translator’s Introduction,” 18. See also Ronald Mellor, “Sources for the Julio-Claudian Age” in From Augustus to Nero: The First Dynasty of Imperial Rome, ed. Ronald Mellor (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1990), 8. 13 Inez Scott Ryberg, “Tacitus’ Art of Innuendo,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 73 (1942): 383, https://doi.org/10.2307/283558. 14 Donald Sullivan, “Innuendo and the ‘weighted alternative’ in Tacitus,” The Classical Journal 71, no. 4 (1976): 313, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3298494. Haire 7

ignore them, leads to inaccurate and biased reproductions of history even when the primary

sources are consulted and followed.15

Suetonius was also not immune to outside influence in The Twelve Caesars. Though not

as high-ranking as Tacitus, Suetonius belonged to the equestrian order, the second tier of the

Roman elite and most of his works concern elite Roman figures.16 J. B. Rives notes that

Suetonius’ biographical style led him to “rigorously exclude everything that does not directly pertain to the person on whom he is focusing, and include everything that does.”17 Generally,

when Suetonius discusses women it is to highlight some aspect of a man’s life or career. In

addition to these biases against women, it is clear that Suetonius held biases against past

emperors. Rives argues that “the very partiality of Suetonius’ accounts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’

emperors is useful, because it allows us to see how the received view of a given emperor was

shaped by the agenda of that emperor’s successors.”18 Claudius suffered several ailments

throughout his life, including a limp and a stutter, and while many modern scholars agree that he

was a decent emperor, Suetonius treats Claudius harshly and portrays him as being controlled by

his wives, likely revealing his and Roman society’s biases against people with disabilities.19

15 For more on interpreting Tacitus see Ronald Syme, Tacitus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958); Ronald Mellor, Tacitus (New York: Routledge, 1994); Ellen O’Gorman, Irony and Misreading in the Annals of Tacitus (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000) and Ronald Mellor, Tacitus’ Annals (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). 16 See Suetonius, Otho 10 and Rives, “Introduction,” xviii. 17 Rives, “Introduction,” xxvi. 18 Rives, “Introduction,” xxxiv. 19 Claudius likely suffered from cerebral palsy. See Ernestine F. Leon, “The Imbecillitas of the Emperor Claudius,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 79 (1948): 79-86, https://doi-org.ezproxy.csusm.edu/10.2307/283354. For descriptions of Claudius’ disabilities in the ancient sources, see Tacitus, Annals 6.46, Suetonius, Divus Claudius 2-4, 30, and Dio Cassius, Roman History 60.2. For modern views on Claudius see Vincent M. Scramuzza, The Emperor Claudius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940); Barbara M. Levick, “Antiquarian or Revolutionary? Claudius Caesar’s Perception of His Principate” The American Journal of Philology 99, no. 1 (1978), https://doi-org.ezproxy.csusm.edu/10.2307/293870 and Barbara Levick, Claudius (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.) Haire 8

Dio, a Greek, also held many important positions in Rome – the consulship twice and several provincial governorships. His work, too, was undoubtedly influenced by his own circumstances. As Carter asserts, Dio began writing Roman History during the “reign of

Caracalla, who ranks as one of the most odiously cruel, greedy and autocratic of the emperors of

Rome. By comparison with such a man Augustus was bound to seem a paragon.”20 Furthermore,

Carter argues that Dio expressed his own political views in some of the elaborate, fictitious

speeches credited to historical figures he often included in his work.21 Since Dio was writing

much later than Tacitus and Suetonius, events and stories found solely in Dio’s account are

unlikely to be factually accurate and, as will be discussed further, I, Claudius does include some

of these unverifiable events.

I, Claudius is based on British writer Robert Graves’ novels I, Claudius (1934) and

Claudius the God (1935). While Graves did receive a classical education in early 20th century

England, he was primarily a poet and novelist, not an historian. Graves served in World War I

and would become one of the most well-known Great War poets.22 Graves also translated several

Classical Latin texts, including Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars, and, while he did consult such

primary sources when writing I, Claudius and Claudius the God, his interpretation of these

sources are not bias-free. According to the insert in the I, Claudius DVD, Graves relied heavily

on Tacitus and Suetonius during his research. As this article points out, “the historians Tacitus

and Suetonius were particularly important to Graves’ research. The description of Augustus’

wife Livia as a power-mad schemer (and possible murderess) fits with her characterization by

20 Carter, “Introduction,” 20. 21 Carter, “Introduction,” 26-27. 22 For more on Graves’ life and work see Jean Moorcroft Wilson, Robert Graves: From Great War Poet to Good-bye to All That (1895-1929) (London: Bloomsbury, 2018). Haire 9

Tacitus.”23 Graves also mentions being inspired the write the novels while reading Tacitus and

Suetonius in an interview featured in the documentary The Epic That Never Was about the failed

1937 movie version of I, Claudius.24 Graves’ generally negative treatment of women throughout

the novels is likely the result of growing up in a culture of deeply-ingrained sexism.25 He even

discusses his acceptance of the patriarchal order and his belief in the supremacy of men over

women while growing up in his autobiography.26 Furthermore, his cynical poetry regarding

World War I indicates a possible distrust for government, a distrust he then projected back onto

the Roman imperial government and providing him ample reason to believe Tacitus’ negative

rumors about the Roman emperors. Disillusioned by the war, Graves visualized imperial Rome

as the corrupt root of Western civilization, leading to his depiction of a “bad empire” that

oppresses good, noble men.27 Furthermore, his cynical poetry regarding World War I indicates a

possible distrust for government, a distrust he then projected back onto the Roman imperial

government and providing him ample reason to believe Tacitus’ negative rumors about the

Roman emperors. The television series generally follows Graves’ uncritical interpretation of the

primary sources with few exceptions when this did not serve their purpose.

23 Jennifer Coggins, “Fact and Fiction in I, Claudius,” 2. 24 The Epic That Never Was, directed by Bill Duncalf (1965; Silver Spring, MD: Acorn Media, 2011), DVD. The film, starring Charles Laughton as Claudius and Merle Oberon as Messalina, was scrapped a month into production after Oberon was injured in a car accident. There were also rumors that disagreements between Laughton and the film producers about how to interpret Claudius were the real reason for the cancellation. 25 Women did not gain full voting rights in the UK until 1928, a mere six years before I, Claudius was published. See Sally J. Scholz, Feminism: A Beginner’s Guide (New York: Oneworld, 2010), 58. 26 Robert Graves, Good-Bye to All That, (London: Jonathan Cape, 1929), 51. 27 Sandra R. Joshel, “I, Claudius: Projection and Imperial Soap Opera” in Imperial Projections: Ancient Rome in Modern Popular Culture, eds. Sandra R. Joshel, Margaret Malamud, and Donald T. McGuire, Jr. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), 125. For more on Graves’ war poetry and post- war life see Samuel Hynes, A War Imagined: The First World War and English Culture (New York: Random House, 2011). Haire 10

Secondary Source Literature History on film was an unthinkable research topic for professional historians just a few

decades ago. Robert A. Rosenstone discusses this in Visions of the Past: The Challenge of Film

to our Idea of History, published in 1995 as the field was emerging. Even with the progress that

had been made when Visions of the Past was published – history journals devoting sections to

film, historical conferences featuring panels on film, etc. – Rosenstone states that history and

film was not yet a field, but rather “a kind of tendency.”28 In History on Film/Film on History,

originally published in 2006, Rosenstone asserts that the book is the “only study which not only

insists the dramatic feature is a new form of doing history… but is also the first to focus on how

individual films function as works of history… and the first to investigate how such works

construct their histories.”29

Though more widely accepted today, history and film is still developing as a field. While

Rosenstone argues that there should be “an acceptance of the dramatic feature film – and the visual media in general – as a legitimate way of doing history,” it is important to note that most filmmakers are not professional historians and are thus interpreting history through a different lens and with different considerations in mind than professional historians.30 The primary

concern of film studios is to make money, requiring writers, producers, and filmmakers to shape

their work to fit this model. While I aim to further Rosenstone’s arguments that such visual

representations of history are worthy of study and can reveal contemporary biases in the

interpretation of history, I also seek to demonstrate the profound difference between filmic

interpretations of history and those of trained historians.

28 Robert A. Rosenstone, Visions of the Past: The Challenges of Film to our Idea of History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 3. 29 Robert A. Rosenstone, History on Film/Film on History (London: Routledge, 2012), xi. 30 Rosenstone, History on Film/Film on History, xviii. Haire 11

In Theories of Cinema, 1945-1995, Francesco Casetti provides “a survey of the different

ways in which films have been conceived, defined, studied, and observed from the mid-1940s to

the mid-1990s.”31 Casetti discusses the birth and development of feminist film theory beginning

in the 1970s as well as patriarchal cinema and women’s cinema. He explains that “Films,

whether American or European, commercial or authorial, tended to portray female characters

according to stereotypes… Thus it was necessary to fight in order to force cinema to

acknowledge what women are and have managed to become inside society.”32 This fight is

ongoing to this day as women are still struggling for better representations in cinema and for

equality behind the camera. Furthermore, Casetti describes the issues that tend to occur when

women are portrayed in film, stating, “[s]exist ideology does not manifest itself by

‘impoverishing’ the feminine presence, but rather by relating it to a timeless universe, peopled by

absolute and abstract entities. Unlike man, woman is placed outside history and thus both

glorified and marginalized.”33 Female characters tend to be “mythologized” in film and rarely

represent the reality of women’s lives. I seek to build on Casetti’s conclusions and demonstrate

that the women of I, Claudius are depicted in universally and ahistorically stereotypical ways.

There has also been plenty of literature focused solely on feminist film theory. Feminism and Film Theory, edited by Constance Penley, contains fifteen essays regarding this topic, including Laura Mulvey’s famous “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” where she coined the term “male gaze.” Penley discusses the development of feminist film theory in the 1970s, stating,

“feminists discovered in film a seemingly perfect object for study. Cinema, as a sort of microcosm, provided a model for the construction of subject positions in ideology, while its

31 Francesco Casetti, Theories of Cinema, 1945-1995, trans. Francesca Chiostri, Elizabeth Gard Bartolini- Salimbeni, and Thomas Kelso (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999), 1. 32 Casetti, Theories of Cinema, 1945-1995, 221. 33 Casetti, Theories of Cinema, 1945-1995, 222. Haire 12

highly Oedipalized narratives lent themselves to a reading of the unconscious mechanisms of

sexual difference in our culture.”34 Penley is pointing out that films reflect societal views of

gender. Since the majority of films are made by men, they really reflect men’s views of gender

and gender differences in contemporary American culture, and usually in a way that is

detrimental to women.

Mentioned earlier, Laura Mulvey uses psychoanalytic theory to demonstrate “the way the

unconscious of patriarchal society has structured film form” in her 1975 essay “Visual Pleasure

and Narrative Cinema.”35 Mulvey argues that cinematic portrayals of women cater to the

heterosexual male gaze to feed the audience’s voyeuristic fantasies. She points out that “In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female. The determining male gaze projects its fantasy onto the female figure, which is styled accordingly… Traditionally, the woman displayed has functioned on two levels: as erotic object for the characters within the screen story, and as erotic object for the spectator within the auditorium.”36 I will use Mulvey’s work to demonstrate how some of the female characters of I,

Claudius fit the patriarchal narrative structure she has described.

Molly Haskell also discusses women in film in From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment

of Women in the Movies. Providing a feminist cinema critique spanning the 1920s-1980s,

Haskell argues that Hollywood perpetuates prejudices towards women in society. Haskell says,

“Through the myths of subjection and sacrifice that were its fictional currency and the

machinations of its moguls in the front offices, the film industry maneuvered to keep women in

34 Constance Penley, ed., Feminism and Film Theory (New York: Routledge, 1988), 3. 35 Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” in The Film Theory Reader: Debates and Arguments, ed. Marc Furstenau (New York: Routledge, 2010), 200. 36 Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” 203-204. Haire 13

their place,” that place being inferior to men.37 Haskell’s analysis demonstrates the importance

of studying the ways in which filmmakers portray women in that stereotypical female characters

lend justification to the ongoing oppression of women in American society.

Women’s history is also a relatively new field. Prior to the 1960s history was dominated

by the elite white male perspective. Women, people of color, and lower-class individuals were almost always excluded, and when they were included, it was only in relation to the elite males.

Judith P. Zinsser discusses the transition from this “traditional” way of writing history to the addition of feminist history in the United States in History and Feminism: A Glass Half Full.

Prior to the 1960s most historians insisted on “objectivity” in historical writing, but these historians tended to define history very narrowly and conducted selective research, thereby belying their claim to objectivity.38 Zinsser points out that by the end of the 1960s in the United

States the “premises basic to the writing of traditional histories came under attack from many

different sides.”39 In other words, scholars began to realize the importance of studying history

from multiple perspectives rather than the supposedly singular objective perspective that was, in

fact, simply the male elite perspective. Though the fight would take decades, women’s history

has become an important field of study, and women’s history courses have become

commonplace in many colleges and universities. One of my aims is to add to the field of

women’s history and further demonstrate its importance.

Ancient Worlds in Film and Television: Gender and Politics by Almut-Barbara Renger

and Jon Solomon offers studies of the reception of Greco-Roman antiquity with an emphasis on

gender. In the introduction Renger and Solomon point out that, “woman-bodies… both in ancient

37 Molly Haskell, From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment of Women in the Movies (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2016), 3. 38 Judith P. Zinsser, History and Feminism: A Glass Half Full (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1993), 18. 39 Zinsser, History and Feminism, 19. Haire 14

cultural activity and modern artistic production – here film – have been and are frequently

constructed by a male artist to serve as a projection screen for male anxieties about women and

to win the creator power and/or success in the field in which he is competing.”40 Every episode

of I, Claudius was written and directed by a man; therefore, this thesis seeks to confirm Renger

and Solomon’s work.

This is by no means a complete survey of the historiography surrounding these various

topics, but it suffices to show that the fields of history on film and women’s history are

continuing to grow and evolve. My thesis will contribute to the existing arguments that film and

women’s history are both valid and important topics to explore within the historical profession.

There are few in-depth studies regarding I, Claudius’ representation of women, an important area

of study as they influence contemporary views of women, given the mass audience that

television reaches in America.

Ancient Rome as Seen on TV

I, Claudius was brought to American audiences during a time of political and social

turmoil in the United States. Sandra R. Joshel discusses this in her article “I, Claudius:

Projection and Imperial Soap Opera,” in which she argues “that television domesticates both

Graves’s novels and empire itself so as to project empire and its disintegration onto the

family.”41 Joshel points out that “I, Claudius’s familial narrative of empire in which good men

are endangered by scheming women pursuing their desires, political and sexual, arrived in the

United States amid a crisis of American empire and society that put women and family in the

40 Almut-Barbara Renger and Jon Solomon, eds., Ancient Worlds in Film and Television: Gender and Politics (Boston, MA: Brill, 2013), 2. 41 Sandra R. Joshel, “I, Claudius: Projection and Imperial Soap Opera” in Imperial Projections: Ancient Rome in Modern Popular Culture, eds. Sandra R. Joshel, Margaret Malamud, and Donald T. McGuire, Jr. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), 121. Haire 15 spotlight.”42 She cites the American failure in the Vietnam War, various government scandals such as the Watergate cover-up, and the ongoing Civil Rights movement from the 1960s as components of this “crisis of American empire and society.” Furthermore, feminism, then in its

“second wave,” was ever present in American politics and society during the 1970s. While first wave feminism focused mainly on suffrage, second wave feminism broadened the fight to include issues such as reproductive rights and workplace inequality. Joshel explains how, “In the seventies, feminism, in particular, became especially visible on the screen of national politics in the U.S. Supreme Court’s legalization of abortion in 1973 and Congress’s approval of the Equal

Rights Amendment.”43 The characterizations of the female characters in I, Claudius did no favors for the feminist movement as the show generally depicts women as passive objects or as villainesses.

I, Claudius covers the reign of the first four emperors of Rome: Augustus, Tiberius,

Caligula, and Claudius. Narrated by an elderly Claudius, the series focuses on the inner workings of the Imperial Family, devoting a significant amount of the plot to the machinations of the imperial women, the emperors’ wives, sisters, daughters, granddaughters. I, Claudius begins and ends with a scheming wife plotting to poison her emperor husband. As Joshel points out, “In I,

Claudius, as in soap opera, family disintegration is repetitive, not cumulative. The narrative makes no progress: it opens in the midst of a dinner party that features a scheming wife (Livia), who will eventually poison her husband (Augustus), and it closes at a dinner party at which a scheming wife (Agrippinilla) poisons her husband (Claudius).”44 The series tends to follow

42 Joshel, “I, Claudius,” 127. 43 Joshel, “I, Claudius,” 128. 44 Joshel, “I, Claudius,” 143. Haire 16

Graves’ uncritical interpretation of the primary sources and Graves himself often takes liberties

in his portrayal of the Augustan women.

The Women of I, Claudius

Often compared to daytime soap operas, I, Claudius focuses on Imperial Family relations

rather than battles or senatorial meetings. Joshel points out in the soap opera world

Sexually active women out of male control pose a constant threat to the patriarchal order of the family. Perhaps more disturbing to that order are the women who wield financial or political power; almost invariably coded as villainesses, such women derive their money, property, business interests, and political power through marriage or its termination in divorce or widowhood.45

This holds true for the women of I, Claudius who, excluded from the power structure, can only

attain power through their husbands or sons.

While I, Claudius features several strong and intelligent women, nearly all of them are

coded as villainesses. Livia, Livilla, Messalina, and Agrippinilla all play active roles in I,

Claudius and spend much of their time scheming, manipulating, and even murdering members

of their own families. 46 Antonia remains passive throughout most of the series, finally taking

action shortly before her death. Julia, while limited to stereotypes in many ways, is presented in

a somewhat more favorable light than many of the other women. Agrippina, on the other hand,

consistently demonstrates agency and intelligence, and not with the evil tendencies of the

aforementioned active women of I, Claudius, making her the best example of an updated

version of an ancient Roman woman. Joshel effectively sums up the characterizations of the

women of I, Claudius:

Repetitively, we watch female characters engage in illicit sex and manipulate men

45 Joshel, “I, Claudius,” 139. 46 Agrippinilla is the name used for Agrippina the younger in both Graves’ novels and on the TV series I, Claudius, likely to help readers and viewers avoid confusion between Agrippina the younger and her mother, Agrippina the elder, granddaughter of Augustus. I will continue to refer to Agrippina the younger as Agrippinilla and to Agrippina the elder as simply Agrippina. Haire 17

through lies and dissimulation. Even the good women are problematic. Agrippina, wife of Germanicus, is moral and chaste, but her outspoken, high-handed behavior secures neither her own nor her sons’ safety; she indulges a young Caligula whom viewers clearly see as spoiled and dangerous. Antonia is a Roman with a finely tuned sense of duty, a woman of strict morality, and a devoted wife, but she is a cold-hearted mother to Claudius, whom she treats with disdain even up to the moment of her suicide.47

While Joshel has a point about Agrippina’s and Antonia’s depictions in I, Claudius, the show

does follow the ancient sources closely regarding these two women, especially concerning

Antonia’s treatment of Claudius, and Agrippina actually defies sexist stereotypes in many ways.

The First Empress of Rome: Livia

Livia Drusilla was married to Augustus, the first Emperor of Rome. She had two sons

from a previous marriage, Tiberius and Drusus.48 Livia is portrayed in a bad light in the ancient

sources and in I, Claudius, both the novels and the television series. Since she and Augustus had

no children together and Augustus only had one daughter, he adopted other members of his

family and groomed them to be his heir. Throughout the ancient sources it is widely held that

Livia wanted Tiberius to be Augustus’ heir; however, Augustus and Tiberius did not get along.

Several of Augustus’ chosen heirs died young, some under mysterious circumstances and Livia

often came under suspicion for these deaths. This bad reputation followed Livia into her modern

depiction in I, Claudius.

A Cold-Blooded Murderer (Maybe?): Livia in the Ancient Sources

According to Tacitus, “The domestic life… of Augustus was not spared… there was

Livia, terrible to the State as a mother, terrible to the house of the Caesars as a stepmother.”49

Tacitus’ statement reflects the general theme threading the ancient sources when it comes to

47 Joshel, “I, Claudius,” fn. 33, p. 159. 48 Suetonius remarks that Augustus “took Livia Drusilla away from her husband, Tiberius Nero, though she was pregnant at the time” Divus Augustus 62; see also Suetonius, Tiberius 4. 49 Tacitus, Annals 1.10. Haire 18

Livia. Though Tacitus might not be the most reliable source of information, given that he was

writing about events that took place decades before his birth, his Annals are, nevertheless, one of

the few primary sources that discuss Livia. Along with Suetonius and Dio, Tacitus describes

Livia’s many alleged crimes in a highly speculative fashion. In many cases, the authors do not

definitively attribute Augustus’ tragic losses to Livia. One of Livia’s first alleged victims was

Marcellus, Augustus’ nephew and son-in-law, for whom Augustus had high hopes. According to

Dio,

Livia, now, was accused of having caused the death of Marcellus, because he had been preferred before her sons; but the justice of this suspicion became a matter of controversy by reason of the character both of that year and the year following, which proved so unhealthful that great numbers perished during them.50

Neither Tacitus nor Suetonius attribute Marcellus’ death to Livia.

Following Marcellus’ death, Augustus adopted his grandsons, Gaius and Lucius, as his

sons and heirs. Tacitus states that the two “were prematurely cut off by destiny, or [emphasis

added] by their step-mother Livia’s treachery.”51 Dio also states that suspicion was cast on Livia

in connection to the deaths of Gaius and Lucius but does not provide any further detail about

how she caused their deaths.52 While Tacitus and Dio both cast suspicion on Livia for the deaths

of Gaius and Lucius, both also state that Gaius was wounded in battle with Dio describing Gaius

as becoming increasingly ill, both mentally and physically, as a result of the wound. Tacitus does

not explicitly state Lucius’ cause of death and Dio says Lucius died from a sudden illness.53

Suetonius makes no mention of Livia having a hand in their deaths. After these losses, Augustus

adopted both his grandson Agrippa Postumus and Tiberius. Augustus ended up sending

50 Dio Cassius, Roman History 53.33.4. Dio also states that Augustus fell extremely ill shortly before Marcellus’ death, though no mention of him being poisoned. 53.30. 51 Tacitus, Annals 1.3. 52 Dio Cassius, Roman History 55.10.10 53 See Tacitus, Annals 1.3 and Dio, Roman History 55.4.6-10. Haire 19

Postumus into exile and the sources provide conflicting reasons for his banishment. According to

Tacitus “[Livia] had gained such a hold on the aged Augustus that he drove out as an exile into

the island of Planasia, his only grandson, Agrippa Postumus, who… had not been convicted of

any gross offense.”54 Though he does not go into specifics, Tacitus still points to Livia’s

manipulation of Augustus as the reason for Postumus’ exile. Dio also discusses Postumus’

banishment but makes no mention of Livia having a hand in this event. He alleges that Postumus

had a violent temper and was often rude to both Livia and Augustus, eventually leading to his

banishment.55 Suetonius mentions that Augustus disinherited Postumus for his vulgar and brutal behavior.56 Again, Livia’s involvement in Postumus’ banishment is highly rumor-based and it seems Postumus himself was responsible for his own banishment.

Perhaps the least likely crime Livia allegedly committed is the murder of her own husband. Regarding Augustus’ death Dio says:

So Augustus fell sick and died. Livia incurred some suspicion in connection with his death, in view of the fact that he had secretly sailed over to the island to see Agrippa [Postumus] and seemed about to become completely reconciled with him. For she was afraid, some say, that Augustus would bring him back to make him sovereign, and so smeared with poison some figs that were still on trees from which Augustus was wont to gather the fruit with his own hands; then she ate those that had not been smeared, offering the poisoned ones to him. At any rate, from this or some other cause he became ill.57

Dio himself seems rather dismissive of this rumor. Augustus lived to be seventy-five years old,

pretty impressive considering the time period, and it was well-known that he suffered bouts of

illness throughout his life.58 Furthermore, Dio is the only ancient source that mentions the story

of Livia smearing poison on the figs and the fact that he was writing much later than Tacitus and

54 Tacitus, Annals 1.3 55 Dio Cassius, Roman History 55.33.2. 56 Suetonius, Divus Augustus 65. 57 Dio Cassius, Roman History 56.30.1-3. 58 See Suetonius, Divus Augustus 81. Haire 20

Suetonius makes the credibility of this story suspect.59 All three sources agree that Postumus was

killed shortly after Augustus’ death and that this was most likely done by order of Tiberius or

Livia.60 Both Tacitus and Dio claim that Augustus had visited Postumus prior to his death and

was considering restoring Postumus as his heir, making him a potential rival to Tiberius.

The Wicked Stepmother: Livia in I, Claudius

Livia’s introduction in I, Claudius features a voice-over by Claudius in which he states,

“if Augustus ruled the world, Livia ruled Augustus.”61 The television series generally follows

Graves’ characterization of Livia and thus is heavily inspired by Tacitus and Suetonius. This is

evident in some of the dialogue. For example, the above quote from Tacitus about Livia’s cruelty

domestically and politically is echoed by Drusus in episode one when he tells Tiberius, “Rome

has a severe mother and Gaius and Lucius a cruel stepmother.”62

The decision to portray Livia as a villain was a deliberate one by the producers.

According to behind-the-scenes footage, when production first began, Siân Phillips struggled

with her portrayal of Livia as she tried to make her more sympathetic and find some justification

to her actions. In response, director Herbert Wise told Phillips to “relish the evilness. Don’t

justify it, just be evil… The more evil you are, the funnier it is, and the more terrifying it is.”63

Furthermore, the producers wanted to portray Augustus as a regular, everyday man rather than as

59 While Tacitus does not explicitly state that Livia murdered Augustus, he conveys the rumor that “Some suspected [Livia] of foul play” as Augustus’ health deteriorated. Furthermore, Tacitus states that during this period, Livia had Tiberius recalled to Rome immediately after being sent away and prevented anyone from visiting Augustus. Annals 1.5.1 60 For Agrippa Postumus’ death see Tacitus, Annals 1.6.1; Suetonius, Tiberius 22; Dio Cassius, Roman History 57.3.5-6. 61 I, Claudius, episode 1, “A Touch of Murder,” directed by Herbert Wise, written by Jack Pulman (1976; Silver Spring: Acorn Media, 2011), DVD. This quote can also be found in Graves’ I, Claudius, 15. 62 I, Claudius, episode 1, “A Touch of Murder.” Drusus’ last words in Graves’ I, Claudius are “‘Rome has a severe mother: Lucius and Gaius have a dangerous stepmother,’" 49. 63 I, Claudius: A Television Epic, directed by Pail Vanezis (2002; Silver Spring: Acorn Media, 2011), DVD. Haire 21

an emperor-like figure. Brian Blessed, who plays Augustus, like Phillips had similar problems in figuring out how to play his character. Wise told Blessed to play Augustus as an ordinary guy and that “everyone else would make him emperor.”64 Moreover, the historical consultant for the show, Robert Erskine, states that Augustus’ emperorship was meant to be temporary, despite any good evidence that this was the case.65 It is unclear where Erskine obtained this idea that

Augustus’ ultimate goal was to restore the Republic as the primary sources do not definitively

state this.66 Suetonius remarks that Augustus briefly considered restoring the Republic and Dio

disputes this claim altogether, even including a likely fictitious speech by Augustus’ friend and

advisor Maecenas in which he urges Augustus to maintain the empire at all costs.67 What is

important is that regardless of the historical record, Graves portrays Augustus as desirous of

restoring the Republic and Livia as preventing him from doing so.68 Having an historical

consultant who makes these claims allows the show to claim some degree of historical accuracy;

however, given the dubiousness of Erskine’s assertion, it is clear that the producers were either

ignorant of the facts of history or deliberately chose to reject history in favor of an interpretation

of the ancient sources that suited some other agenda.

Poison is a central theme throughout I, Claudius. The title screen features a snake

slithering over a mosaic of the words “I, Claudius.” Although it is certainly possible that Livia

64 I, Claudius: A Television Epic 65 I, Claudius: A Television Epic. 66 Despite extensive searching, there is little information available about Erskine or his credentials. It is unclear if he held a Ph.D. in History or Classicis or if he was associated with a university. 67 See Suetonius, Divus Augustus 28 and Dio Roman History 55.14-40. 68 See Robert Graves, I, Claudius (New York: Random House, 1934), 38. The claim that Augustus’ goal was to restore the republic is disputed by many historians. See, for example, Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939), 3; Ronald Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); Barbara Levick, Augustus: Image and Substance (New York: Routledge, 2010) and Richard Alston, Rome’s Revolution: Death of the Republic and Birth of the Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015). Haire 22 poisoned numerous people, it is also possible that they died from other causes considering the time period, and our ancient sources of evidence explicitly state that they did. Nevertheless, the series depicts Livia as a power-hungry murderess to the delight of audiences. Joshel points out that “Livia’s traffic in dirt (secrets about other characters) presents particular difficulties and, if the reviews are testimony, pleasures for viewers.”69 Livia’s first victim in I, Claudius is

Marcellus, who falls ill. Livia volunteers to look after Marcellus, a ruse so she can poison him.

Naturally, there is no mention in I, Claudius of the “unhealthful” year described by Dio, since this would be far less entertaining for audiences. Instead, audiences get the cold, scheming Livia whom they love to hate.

Next on Livia’s hit list are Augustus’ grandsons Gaius and Lucius. In I, Claudius both young men die under suspicious circumstances and Livia later confesses to Claudius that she ordered their deaths. Following the deaths of Gaius and Lucius, Augustus adopts his grandson

Postumus and Tiberius, bringing Livia closer to her goal. Livia takes a different approach to getting rid of Postumus, at least initially. She convinces her granddaughter, Livilla, to falsely accuse Postumus of rape. Augustus then exiles Postumus, though Postumus manages to escape and tell Claudius the truth before being recaptured. Livilla’s false rape allegation is not attested by any ancient source and is a complete fabrication by Graves.70 The show’s deliberate decision to include this fabricated embellishment of already androcentric ancient sources by an early- twentieth-century man perpetuates the idea that women who make claims of sexual assault should be met with skepticism and provides another justification for men to fear women.

Livia’s next victim is her husband Augustus. I, Claudius again chooses to follow the modern novelist Graves, who in turn follows Dio’s story precisely, with Livia smearing poison

69 Joshel, “I, Claudius,” 145. 70 Graves, I, Claudius, 129-130. Haire 23 on the figs while they are still on the tree as Augustus insists on picking them himself.71 Shortly after this Livia has Postumus killed while he is still in exile. Here, again, the producers of I,

Claudius deliberately chose to portray Livia in the most damning light possible when they could have easily justified historically Livia not having a hand in Augustus’ death. Suetonius says nothing about Livia killing Augustus; Tacitus, in his typically tendentious way, merely conveys that “some suspected” Livia,72 and Dio, the latest source and the only one to describe the fig- poisoning, is unlikely to be credible regarding this story when no earlier sources mention it. In their desire to make Livia as bad as possible, like Graves, who sought to tell an entertaining story whose appeal relies on prevailing biases against women, the producers deliberately chose the most damning, yet the least reliable source concerning Augustus’ death.

In Livia’s last episode she pleads with Claudius to ensure she is made a goddess after her death because she fears going to hell for all the terrible things she has done. As a condition of this, Claudius asks Livia for the truth about the multiple deaths that occurred throughout

Augustus’ reign. Livia confesses to six murders, including that of her own husband, and admits that she had even marked her own son, Drusus, for death, all the while claiming she “always put the good of the empire above all else.”73 This is perhaps the only point throughout the series that audiences get to see a somewhat softer side to Livia. She does seem truly frightened by the prospect of going to hell and gets choked up while claiming that killing Augustus was the hardest thing she had to do. However, it is still clear that she believes her actions were justified. When

Claudius asks Livia why she intended to kill Drusus, she says he was “infected with that infantile disorder known as republicanism.”74 By granting Livia this justification and making it clear that

71 Graves, I, Claudius, 287-289. 72 Tacitus, Annals 1.5.1. 73 I, Claudius, Episode 6, “Queen of Heaven.” 74 I, Claudius, Episode 6, “Queen of Heaven.” Haire 24

she is concerned with larger political issues as well as the good of the Roman empire, I, Claudius

does allow her to rise above the typically weak and evil female characters who act out of pure

selfishness. Unlike Graves’ Livia “whose fixed intention it was, in the event of Augustus’ death, to continue ruling the Empire through… Tiberius,” show-Livia is not solely motivated by her desire to see her son become emperor as she truly believes that the imperial system of

government is superior and she is willing to do the dirty work for what she perceives as the

greater good.75 Despite this more nuanced aspect of Livia’s character, the show still demonizes

her by making her an enemy of a more democratic form of government that the vast majority of

viewers in the UK and US would prefer as right and good.

Livia: Villain or Victim?

While I, Claudius paints a damning image of Livia, there is a different Livia who can be

found within the ancient sources. When describing the events surrounding the burning of

Augustus’ body, Dio explains that after all the ceremonies had been performed and everyone else

had departed, “Livia remained on the spot for five days in company with the most prominent

knights, and then gathered up his bones and placed them in his tomb.”76 Annelise Freisenbruch

also discusses these disparities regarding Livia when she asks:

Livia the devout wife at her husband’s deathbed, or Livia the manipulative cold-blooded political operative? Which portrait should we believe? It is a dilemma all too common to the study of these women, and it is not a question that can be answered with any satisfying degree of certainty. Livia was not the last empress to be accused of murdering her husband. Indeed, the striking plot similarities between Livia’s reported actions following Augustus’s death and accounts written by the same historians of the behavior of at least two future empresses should make us at least skeptical of taking such accusations at face value.77

75 Graves, I, Claudius, 29. 76 Dio Cassius, Roman History, 56.42.4. 77 Annelise Freisenbruch, The First Ladies of Rome: The Women Behind the Caesars (London: Vintage Books, 2010), 84-85. Haire 25

Here, Freisenbruch demonstrates that vilifying women was a common theme among ancient

historians and it is, therefore, difficult to assess which accounts are true. What is apparent,

however, is that those behind I, Claudius chose the cold-blooded Livia and that audiences responded well to her. 78

Livia’s Biographer Matthew Dennison states that her “true ‘crime’ was not murder but

the exercise of power… Livia created for herself a public profile and a sphere of influence…

That she won public plaudits for her contribution to Roman life was in itself enough to

condemn her – in the eyes not only of contemporaries but also of influential later writers.”79 As

is still too often the case, Livia was villainized for attaining something that was viewed as a

masculine possession: power. As Mary Beard points out in her exploration of the long history of

misogyny, “Women in power are seen as breaking down barriers, or alternatively as taking

something to which they are not quite entitled,” thus representing a threat to male privilege.80

The idea that Livia, visible in Roman public life and, at times, active in her husband’s political

life, must have been a manipulative murderer has persisted from the ancient sources, which are

themselves biased against women, to Graves’ novels and to the small screen in I, Claudius,

though the show does, at times, provide some semblance of female empowerment through

Livia, albeit power exercised either for self-interest or despotic rule.

Like Grandmother, Like Granddaughter: Livilla

The ancient sources say little about Claudius’ sister Livilla. She was married to Tiberius’

78 Joshel notes that Livia received more attention from reviewers than any other character. “I, Claudius,” 159, fn. 35. See for example John J. O’Connor, “TV: Tour of Rome with ‘I, Claudius,’” New York Times, November 3, 1977, James Wolcott, “I, Klutzius,” Village Voice, November 7, 1977, and Gerald Clarke, “Romans and Countrymen,” Time, November 14, 1977. 79 Matthew Dennison, Livia: Empress of Rome (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2010), 2-3. 80 Mary Beard, Women & Power: A Manifesto (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2017), 57. Haire 26

son Drusus81 with whom she had three children.82 Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dio all allege that

Drusus was murdered by Livilla and Sejanus, Livilla’s lover and Tiberius’ Praetorian Prefect

and right-hand man.83 Furthermore, they all mention that the motivations behind killing Drusus

were Sejanus’ own ambitions and/or a grudge he held against Drusus.

In I, Claudius Livilla very much follows in her grandmother Livia’s footsteps. As

previously discussed, I, Claudius includes Graves’ fabricated plot line in which Livilla carries

out Livia’s instructions to falsely accuse Postumus, with whom Livilla is having an affair, of

rape. Much of the rest of her screen time is devoted to her affair with Sejanus and she poisons

both her husband and daughter84 because she wants to marry Sejanus. While Sejanus is

certainly depicted in a bad light throughout I, Claudius, both Graves and the show give Livilla a

much more sinister role in the scheme than is attested by ancient authors. There is no mention

of Livilla’s daughter being poisoned in any of the ancient sources, so this is yet another entirely

fabricated story line by I, Claudius that serves to portray Livilla in the worst possible light.

Furthermore, the murders in I, Claudius seem to be motivated more by Livilla’s lust for Sejanus

rather than Sejanus’ desire for power as the ancient sources attest. Livilla is ultimately locked in

a room by her mother and dies of starvation in episode eight, and this, at least, is attested by

Dio.85

Livilla does not seem to be motivated by the desire for the power of empire as the other

women who commit such terrible deeds in I, Claudius; rather, it seems like she just wants to be

81 Drusus Julius Caesar, son of Tiberius and husband of Livilla, is known as Castor in the I, Claudius novels and TV series. 82 Tacitus, Annals 2.84; Dio Cassius, Roman History 58.3.9. 83 Suetonius, Tiberius 62; Tacitus, Annals 4.2; Dio Cassius, Roman History 57.22.1-2. 84 In I, Claudius Livilla has a daughter named Helen, though there is no historical evidence for this. Livilla’s three children with Drusus were Julia Livia and twin sons Germanicus Gemellus and Tiberius Gemellus. See note 58. 85 Dio Cassius, Roman History 58.11.7. Haire 27

with Sejanus.86 The fact that she is willing to murder both her husband and daughter for Sejanus

is troubling and demonstrates the willingness of the I, Claudius producers to simply follow a

secondary source in Graves, who demonizes women even more than the ancient sources do.

The Adulteress: Messalina in the Ancient Sources

Messalina, Claudius’ third wife, has an extremely scandalous reputation that has followed

her through history thanks to the ancient source material. Messalina allegedly engaged in all

manner of outrageous activities while married to Claudius. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio all claim

that Messalina married Gaius Silius while still married to Claudius.87 But Tacitus also

acknowledges how unlikely this event was:

It will seem fantastic, I know, that in a city where nothing escapes notice or comment, any human beings could have felt themselves so secure. Much more so that, on an appointed day and before invited signatories, a consul designate and the emperor’s wife should have been joined together in formal marriage.88

Furthermore, Tacitus claims that it was Silius who pushed for the marriage and that Messalina

was “unenthusiastic” about it but went along with the plan because of its “sheer

outrageousness.”89 Dio also has harsh words for Messalina: “Messalina, as if it were not enough

for her to play the adulteress and harlot — for in addition to her shameless behaviour in general

she at times sat as a prostitute in the palace herself and compelled the other women of the

highest rank to do the same — now conceived a desire to have many husbands.”90 Suetonius, in

addition to discussing Messalina’s promiscuity, further describes Messalina as having a violent

streak. Suetonius claims that Messalina sent assassins to kill Nero as a child because she

86 In contrast, Graves’ Livilla seems more motivated by her desire to become empress. See I, Claudius, 249-254, 303-309. 87 See Tacitus, Annals 11.12, 26; Suetonius, Divus Claudius 26; Dio Cassius, Roman History 61.31.3. 88 Tacitus, Annals 11.27. 89 Tacitus, Annals 11.27. 90 Dio Cassius, Roman History 61.31.1. Haire 28 believed Nero would become a rival to her son Britannicus.91 It is entirely possible that

Claudius, Nero, or their advisors smeared Messalina’s reputation to justify her execution. If she did have an affair with a Senator, this would have been politically damaging to Claudius, thus leading to his decision to have her executed. Disseminating these unbelievable stories about

Messalina would further vilify her in order to justify her eventual execution.

“I want to be Livia to your Augustus:” Messalina in I, Claudius

I, Claudius follows the ancient sources in its damning portrayal of Messalina, who partakes in no shortage of scandals throughout her two-episode arc. Graves says little about

Messalina, as Joshel discusses,

only the last 67 pages of the 507-page [Claudius the God] focus exclusively on the machinations of Claudius’s wives. The television series generally reduces his reign to the stories of his wives, especially Messalina, whose adulteries and plots occupy two of the three episodes devoted to his rule.92

While it is true that Graves does not devote as much time to Messalina’s schemes as the show, he still treats her harshly, even suggesting that she had 156 different lovers in her first year of marriage to Claudius.93 One of Messalina’s first lines in the TV series is to tell Claudius that she “wants to be Livia to his Augustus.”94 Her escapades include: arranging her mother’s marriage to Silanus because she, Messalina, is in love with him and wants to be near him, holding a sex tournament wherein she competes with a prostitute to see who can sleep with the most men, and marrying another man while still married to Claudius. While hearing Messalina proclaim her desire to be involved in state matters in the face of her mother telling her that it is not a woman’s place is a refreshing change of pace, these words are meaningless when

91 Suetonius, Nero 6. 92 Joshel, “I, Claudius,” 142. 93 Robert Graves, Claudius the God (New York: Vintage International, 1935), 461. 94 I, Clauidus, episode 10, “Fool’s Luck.” Haire 29

considering Messalina’s character arc in I, Claudius. Rather than taking part in state business,

Messalina is reduced to a hypersexual manipulator.

Messalina: Sex Obsessed or Helpful Wife?

Joshel discusses the problems associated with interpreting Messalina’s actions and

motives based on Tacitus’ narrative in “Female Desire and the Discourse of Empire: Tacitus’s

Messalina.” Joshel points out that “the actions assigned to agents in ancient sources depend on

the rhetorical strategies of male authors. Especially important for understanding Messalina, the

ancient sources are unreliable on sexual misconduct.”95 In the ancient sources, Claudius is often

portrayed as being easily manipulated by his wives and freedmen and as being oblivious to the

goings-on of his own household, as with Messalina’s marriage to Silius. As Joshel notes,

“Tacitus’s effort to transfer agency from the emperor to his wife and freedmen produces tropes,

improbabilities, and nonsensical elements that constitute key aspects of his characterization of

Messalina.”96 To maintain the image of Messalina as sex-obsessed and power-hungry, Tacitus

must employ fantastical elements within his narrative. I, Claudius sticks with this narrative of

convoluted storylines in its portrayal of Messalina.

Barbara Levick also discusses the issues with Messalina’s characterization in the ancient

sources. She points out that the elimination of several of Claudius’ political rivals, often

attributed to Messalina by the ancient authors, were more likely the result of some type of

collusion between Claudius and Messalina, both of whom were afraid of losing power.97 This is

especially true regarding the case of Appius Silanus, who was executed after Messalina and the

freedman Narcissus allegedly reported having dreams in which Silanus was plotting to

95 Sandra R. Joshel, “Female Desire and the Discourse of Empire: Tacitus’s Messalina,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 21, no. 1 (1995): 56. 96 Joshel, “Female Desire and the Discourse of Empire,” 57. 97 Levick, Claudius, 58. Haire 30 assassinate Claudius.98 Levick points out that it was Claudius who benefitted from getting rid of

Silanus, a potential rival, and that Claudius was able to escape “full responsibility for the execution of a nobleman without trial, and, if the story were not believed, it would be Messalina or Narcissus (as Tacitus holds) who bore the odium of it… Either Claudius arranged the entire charade or he tacitly allowed Messalina and Narcissus to arrange it.”99 While no one is claiming that Messalina was completely innocent, it is unlikely she was able to accomplish everything she has been accused of without Claudius’ knowledge.

As Joshel and Levick demonstrate, there is another way to interpret the ancient sources’ representation of Messalina. These sources, hostile to Claudius, consistently fall back on the idea that Claudius was not a good ruler because he could not control his wives. While I,

Claudius depicts Claudius in a more favorable light than the ancient sources, the same cannot be said for Messalina, revealing yet again that the producers either failed to view this history through a more critical lens or chose to ignore this interpretation because it did not fit with their own vision of women and how they should be depicted.

“A rigorous, almost masculine despotism:” Agrippinilla in the Ancient Sources

As Claudius’ fourth wife and the mother of Nero, who would reign immediately after

Claudius, Agrippinilla held an important position in Rome. Since Agrippinilla was Claudius’ niece, Claudius had to get the Senate to agree to their marriage. According to Suetonius,

Agrippinilla

had a niece’s privilege of kissing and caressing Claudius, and exercised it with a noticeable effect on his passions: when the Senate next met, he persuaded a group of senators to propose that a union between him and her should be compulsorily arranged in the public interest, and that other uncles should likewise be free to marry their nieces, though this had hitherto counted as incest.100

98 See Suetonius, Divus Claudius 37 and Dio Cassius, Roman History 60.14.4. 99 Levick, Claudius, 59. 100 Suetonius, Divus Claudius 26. Haire 31

Interestingly, though Agrippinilla does not come off well in Tacitus’ account, he describes her

differently from Messalina. Upon Agrippinilla’s marriage to Claudius, Tacitus states “from this

moment the country was transformed. Complete obedience was accorded to a woman – and not

a woman like Messalina who toyed with national affairs to satisfy her appetites. This was a

rigorous, almost masculine despotism. In public, [Agrippinilla] was austere and often arrogant.

Her private life was chaste – unless power was to be gained.”101 Tacitus is ascribing a

masculine quality to Agrippinilla’s affairs since she is allegedly conducting them to further her

political ambitions, unlike Messalina who allegedly participated in such activities mostly

because it was fun for her. It was also not uncommon for Roman emperors to have extramarital

affairs excused on the basis that the affairs were politically motivated.102 Tacitus later goes on

to make references to Agrippinilla’s “feminine excess of ambition,” “feminine jealousy,” and

“feminine rage,” as it was not a woman’s place to participate in matters of state.103

“The Deadliest Woman in Rome:” Agrippinilla in I, Claudius

Agrippinilla is extremely problematic in I, Claudius. The episode description before the

last episode of I, Claudius, “Old King Log,” states that Agrippinilla is “the deadliest woman in

Rome.” Though she is his niece, she and Claudius marry in episode twelve. At Agrippinilla’s

urging, her lover, Claudius’ freedman advisor, Pallas, pushes Claudius to marry her. Despite

another advisor, Narcissus, objecting fiercely to the marriage, Claudius agrees to it. Claudius

later tells Agrippinilla that he is marrying her because he is tired of ruling alone and he needs “a

woman with a mind.”104 While Suetonius makes the marriage between Claudius and

101 Tacitus, Annals 12.7. 102 See, for example, Suetonius, Divus Augustus 69 on justifications for Augustus’ infidelities “for reasons of state.” 103 Tacitus, Annals 12.57, 62, 13.9. 104 I, Claudius, episode 12, “Old King Log.” Haire 32

Agrippinilla sound as if it were more for physical reasons, in the TV series Claudius explains to

Narcissus that he married Agrippinilla because of a prophecy that predicted that, among other things, Nero would succeed him as emperor. Claudius’ hope is that Nero will destroy the monarchy with his instability and that his own son, Britannicus, will then restore the Republic.

This is an extremely convoluted plot line as the idea that Claudius’ ultimate goal was to restore the Republic is mentioned nowhere in the ancient sources. This fabrication originated with

Graves and the show’s inclusion of this plot line serves to justify Claudius’ decision to marry a terrible woman. However, Tacitus states that Claudius chose to marry Agrippinilla because her son came from Augustus’ bloodline, thus uniting the Julio-Claudian family, and there is no indication that Claudius thought ill of Agrippinilla.105 It is also likely that Claudius wanted Nero as another potential successor should Claudius die while Britannicus was still too young to reign. This fits with Graves’ characterization of both Claudius, whom he portrays as a staunch

Republican, and Agrippinilla whom he says “could claim the title of the worst woman of

Rome” with Messalina dead.106 Graves also echoes Tacitus’ comparison of Messalina and

Agrippinilla, noting that Agrippinilla cared only for power and used sex for political purposes rather than for pleasure, as Messalina did.107 Ultimately, both the novel and the show end with

Agrippinilla murdering Claudius by poisoning him.

Agrippinilla: Master Manipulator or Literary Construct?

Judith Ginsberg discusses how Agrippinilla’s reputation has been established by studying the literary accounts of Agrippinilla’s life. She argues,

We will go a long way toward dispelling the power that the Tacitean account of [Agrippinilla] has over us by recognizing that a number of literary and rhetorical features of the historian’s narrative make it extremely problematic to take the picture of

105 Tacitus, Annals 12.2-3. 106 Graves, Claudius the God, 478. 107 Graves, Claudius the God, 481. Haire 33

[Agrippinilla] that emerges as an accurate reflection of the historical woman. We need to acknowledge, in other words, that Tacitus’s [Agrippinilla] is largely a literary construct that serves the larger ends of the narrative of the principates of Claudius and Nero.108

As with any other woman depicted in ancient sources, it is nearly impossible to determine if the

Agrippinilla described by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio is the real one and it is important to keep

the biases of said authors in mind when reading their accounts. Ginsberg further explains that

Tacitus attributes certain acts to Agrippinilla, such as removing Britannicus’ supporters to pave

the way for Nero, but fails to explain how she managed to accomplish such feats.109 Despite the

myriad reasons to be skeptical of the depiction of Agrippinilla in the ancient sources, I,

Claudius tends to take the accounts at face value and present a ruthless murderer in

Agrippinilla.

I, Claudius’ Agrippinilla clearly craves the power of the Roman empire, seeking it first

through her push to marry Claudius and then through her machinations to ensure her son

becomes Claudius’ heir. Once again, the producers’ naïve interpretation of the ancient sources

serves to portray Agrippinilla in the worst possible light while still allowing them to claim they

are following the “real” history.

Different Interpretations: Depictions of Men in I, Claudius

I, Claudius depicts Augustus not as the towering historical figure he likely was, but as a

simplistic man who wished for the return of the Republic in contrast to Livia’s murderous desire

to maintain the Empire. Similarly, the show depicts Claudius as a benevolent ruler desirous of

restoring the Republic, who is also clever, good at reading people, and always thinking ahead

while taking great pains to demonstrate how villainous and power-hungry his wives are. In fact,

108 Judith Ginsberg, Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 9. 109 Ginsberg, Representing Agrippina, 27. Haire 34 nearly every bad character, man or woman, craves imperial power while the good men support a more democratic form of government. This encourages democratic-minded British and

American viewers to identify and side with the good men of the series. Claudius even states in episode twelve that his one fault has been his benevolence. While television’s Claudius plans ahead and has good intentions, Suetonius describes several incidences of Claudius’ absent- mindedness and cruelty. Suetonius remarks that “Claudius’ scatter-brainedness and shortsightedness… were truly remarkable… Often, in fact, Claudius showed such absent- mindedness in speech and action that it might have been thought that he neither knew nor cared to whom, or in whose hearing, or when or where, he was speaking.”110 Suetonius also makes several remarks about Claudius being blood thirsty and having people executed with little cause.111 While it is, of course, important to remain skeptical of these sources’ trustworthiness, it is also important to note that both Graves and the producers of I, Claudius chose not to take the ancient authors at face value in their depiction of Claudius. Despite the evidence, the show overlooks many of Claudius’ flaws while taking virtually any mention of the women’s misdeeds, no matter how unlikely they might be, and incorporating them into the show. While one could argue that Claudius was manipulated by his wives, the same is hardly true of

Augustus. I, Claudius’ depiction of Augustus as simple, naïve, and being controlled by Livia does not fit with the man whose accomplishments suggest he was exceedingly shrewd and calculating.

110 Suetonius, Divus Claudius 39-40. 111 Suetonius, Divus Claudius 15, 34-38. Haire 35

The Less Murderous and Less Active Women of I, Claudius

The Matron: Antonia

There is little to be found about Claudius’ mother Antonia in the ancient sources. Tacitus mentions Antonia a few times in relation to her sons but does not provide much in the way of

Antonia’s character. Suetonius says a bit more about Antonia, including her poor treatment of

Claudius, stating, “His mother Antonia often called him ‘a monster: a man whom Nature had begun to work upon but then flung aside’; and if she ever accused anyone of stupidity she would exclaim, ‘He is a bigger fool even than my son Claudius!’”112 Suetonius also discusses Antonia’s relationship with her grandson Caligula and alleges that Caligula might have had a hand in

Antonia’s death.113 Dio is the only source that claims Antonia killed her daughter Livilla by locking her in a room and starving her when Livilla’s treachery against Tiberius was revealed.114

The Cold-Hearted Mother: Antonia in I, Claudius

Both Graves and the show depict Antonia in much the same way as the scant ancient sources describe her.115 She frequently tells Claudius what a fool she thinks he is and even states that she finds it difficult to be affectionate toward him.116 Antonia also tells Claudius that he is “the biggest fool any mother was ever punished with.”117 Aside from her harsh treatment of Claudius, Antonia is the model Roman matron, extremely proper and modest. She often seems scandalized at Julia’s casual discussions about sex, and Julia even points out how

“innocent” Antonia is. In fact, there are several references to Antonia’s so-called innocence. For example, in episode six Antonia is shocked to learn that her daughter, Livilla, is having an affair

112 Suetonius, Divus Claudius 3. 113 For Antonia and Caligula, see Suetonius, Gaius Caligula 10.1, 15.2, 23.2, 24.1, and 29.1. 114 Dio Cassius, Roman History 58.11.7. 115 For Antonia in Graves see I, Claudius, 44, 303-304,309, 336-337. 116 I, Claudius, episode 2, “Waiting in the Wings.” 117 I, Claudius, episode 7, “Reign of Terror.” Haire 36 with Sejanus, both of whom are married to other people. Antonia seems to think it is impossible for this to be going on as she points out that Sejanus is married and has two children. Agrippina responds to this by asking Antonia “what kind of world do you think we’re living in!”118 At the beginning of episode seven Claudius states that Antonia had “remained curiously innocent of what was going on,”119 referring to the multiple affairs and murders that had taken place within the Imperial Family. By this episode Antonia is finally starting to catch on to what her own family has been doing.

Later in episode seven Antonia finds out that Livilla poisoned her husband, Castor, so she could marry Sejanus. Tiberius, now emperor, would not allow Sejanus to marry Livilla and instead insisted on Sejanus marrying Livilla’s daughter, Helen. In order to prevent this, Livilla starts poisoning Helen. Antonia learns of Castor’s murder by reading Livilla’s letters to Sejanus, which she stumbles across accidentally. At this point she also deduces that Livilla has been poisoning Helen, who had fallen ill. At the same time Antonia also discovers Livilla’s role in

Postumus’ banishment from Claudius. She then decides to kill Livilla by locking her in her room with no food or water. Afterwards, Antonia tells Claudius that she does not regret killing

Livilla and that she would do it again, before stating that “Rome is sick, sick to its heart.”120 For this reason she encourages Claudius to assassinate Caligula, who is now emperor, and decides to take her own life.

Relative to other women in I, Claudius, Antonia is one of the few who can be considered

“good.” Furthermore, unlike the “wicked” women of the series, Antonia is clearly disgusted by the state of the Roman empire and, though she never explicitly states it in the show, would

118 I, Claudius, episode 6, “Queen of Heaven.” 119 I, Claudius, episode 7, “Reign of Terror.” 120 I, Claudius, episode 8, “Zeus, By Jove.” Haire 37 probably support the restoration of the Republic much like her husband Drusus did. Moreover, portraying Antonia for much of the show as oblivious and mostly passive or, in other words, as

“knowing her place,” could arguably be perceived as I, Claudius suggesting that only this type of woman can be considered “good.” When Antonia finally does take action by exposing

Sejanus and Livilla to Tiberius and subsequently killing Livilla, she then does what might be considered the “noble” and “masculine” act of committing suicide.

The First Daughter of Rome: Julia in the Ancient Sources

Augustus had only one child, Julia, by his second wife Scribonia. Julia married three times, first to Marcellus, who died young, then to Marcus Agrippa with whom she had five children, including Gaius, Lucius, and Postumus, all of whom would be adopted by Augustus before meeting untimely ends. Finally, she married Livia’s son Tiberius, but the two of them did not get along.121 All three sources agree that Augustus banished Julia upon finding out that she was engaging in multiple extramarital affairs and that Augustus was furious with her.

Suetonius and Dio attest to Julia’s affairs and subsequent banishment. Suetonius mentions both

Julia and her daughter Julia the younger, stating, “[Augustus] found out that both the elder and the younger Julia had been indulging in every sort of vice, and banished them.”122 Augustus was allegedly so furious with both Julias that he ordered “their bodies… be excluded from the

Mausoleum.”123 Dio also discusses Augustus’ anger with Julia:

When [Augustus] discovered that his daughter Julia had so far abandoned any restraint in her conduct that she took part in revels and drinking parties by night in the Forum… he was filled with rage. Even before this he had suspected that she had not been leading a decorous life, but had refused to believe it… So when Augustus learned what had been happening, he was overcome by a passion so violent that he could not keep the matter to himself, but actually spoke of it to the Senate. In consequence Julia was banished to the

121 See Suetonius, Tiberius 7, 10, 50 and Dio Cassius, Roman History 55.9.7. 122 Suetonius, Divus Augustus 65. 123 Suetonius, Divus Augustus 101. Haire 38

island of Pandateria.124

Tacitus only mentions Julia’s alleged scandals upon recording her death, stating, “This was the year when Julia died. Her father Augustus had imprisoned her – for immorality…When

[Tiberius] became emperor, he eliminated her last hope by the removal of Agrippa Postumus.

Then he let her waste away to death, exiled and disgraced, by slow starvation.”125

It is also apparent that Julia was quite popular with the Roman people. Both Suetonius and Dio mention that the people pleaded with Augustus to recall Julia from exile. According to

Suetonius, “nothing would persuade [Augustus] to recall his daughter from exile, and when the

Roman people interceded several times on her behalf, he stormed at a popular assembly, ‘May the gods curse you with daughters as lecherous as mine, and with wives as adulterous!’”126

The Troublesome Daughter: Julia in I, Claudius

Julia is featured heavily in the first few episodes of I, Claudius. At the beginning of the series Julia is married to Marcellus who, as described earlier, is murdered by Livia. Julia is hysterical when Marcellus dies as she runs around the palace screaming and crying. While Julia does spend much of her time gossiping and getting massages, she is one of the few women in the show who does not plot to murder members of her own family. Furthermore, she consistently treats Claudius with respect, a rarity as most others, including his own mother, often insult Claudius because of his disabilities throughout the series. Finally, among mothers in the show she has the least problematic relationships with her children.

Julia also sleeps around in I, Claudius and, as a result, is sent into exile by Augustus.

Naturally, Livia is the mastermind behind Julia’s banishment in I, Claudius. Upon learning that

124 Dio Cassius, Roman History 55.10.12-14. 125 Tacitus, Annals 1.53. 126 Suetonius, Divus Augustus 65. See also Dio Cassius, Roman History 55.13. Haire 39

Julia is sleeping with her son’s friend, Plautius, Livia asks him to spy on Julia. Audiences are treated to a scene of Julia being carried through a brothel as Plautius looks on, gathering intel for Livia. In episode two Augustus gathers all the men Julia allegedly slept with and, infuriated, banishes them all. Later in that episode Julia learns of her own banishment and is, again, hysterical. She pounds on Augustus’ door, screaming for him to see her, but he refuses. When

Livia comes across Julia as this is happening, Julia confronts her about her role in the banishment. Prior to this, Julia also suspected that Livia was involved in Marcellus’ murder, even mentioning it to Antonia in one of their massage sessions.

Julia’s characterization in the show generally follows Graves’ depiction of her. Graves describes Julia as becoming “hysterical” when Tiberius rejects her “passionate demands” and further discusses the many infidelities Julia allegedly committed as well as her “nocturnal orgies in the Market Place and on the Oration Platform.”127 However, just as the show’s treatment of

Julia is not entirely negative, Graves’ Julia also garners some sympathy as he makes it clear that

Livia is the instigator of most of Julia’s problems. Graves even has Claudius note that “Julia deserves far greater sympathy than she has popularly won. She was, I believe, naturally a decent, good-hearted woman, though fond of pleasures and excitements, and the only one of my female relations who had a kindly word for me.”128 Despite this, Julia’s depiction in I, Claudius, the novel and the show, is highly disparaging.

Julia: A Political Pawn?

Recent scholarship has attempted to rescue Julia from this scandalous reputation that began with ancient historians and is perpetuated by I, Claudius. Elaine Fantham discusses the political motivations that were likely behind Augustus’ exposure and banishment of his only

127 Graves, I, Claudius, 59, 64. 128 Graves, I, Claudius, 63. Haire 40 daughter. She explains that “the accusation of adultery was used throughout Roman history to discredit women of high rank.”129 Moreover, it was Augustus himself who brought the charges against Julia and, as Fantham points out, “although there was a legal procedure to judge accusations of adultery, and modern scholars sometimes speak of Julia’s trial, it is clear that there was no trial, and therefore no public verification of [Augustus’] charges.”130 It is possible that Augustus knew about Julia’s affairs for some time and put off publicly exposing her to protect the legitimacy of her sons, Gaius and Lucius, as his heirs.131 Fantham further notes that

“so long as ancient history and Latin literature were chiefly studied by men, the worst slanders against Julia… have been smugly accepted. Some men find it gratifying to think that women can be so animal and uncontrolled.”132 Similarly, the men behind I, Claudius tend to take the ancient sources at face value when it comes to Julia and, for the most part, portray her as a vain young woman who is only interested in sex and gossip.

Ronald Syme also argues that Augustus’ public outing of Julia’s affairs was politically motivated. He notes that “Julia was not a nonentity but a great political lady. Her paramours the five nobiles are not innocent triflers or moral reprobates but a formidable faction.”133 The prominent senators Julia was allegedly involved with posed a threat to Augustus’ regime. While it is unclear whether this was Julia’s motivation for the affairs, it is certainly not out of the question. Syme further argues that there was possibly a dynastic power struggle between Julia and Livia in terms of whose son would succeed Augustus. He describes Livia as an “astute politician” who, like Julia, sought to build up her own faction, though she lacked the family

129 Elaine Fantham, Julia Augusti: The Emperor’s Daughter (New York: Routledge, 2006), 86. 130 Fantham, Julia Augusti, 86. 131 Fantham, Julia Augusti, 87. 132 Fantham, Julia Augusti, 126. 133 Syme, The Roman Revolution, 427. Haire 41 members to do so.134

Julia’s extramarital affairs can also be seen as an understandable response to the control

Augustus exerted over her. Not only was Julia forced into marriages with Agrippa, who was old enough to be her father, and Tiberius who, by all accounts, was not the most pleasant husband to her, she was also raised in a strict household. According to Suetonius, Augustus forbade Julia and his granddaughters “to say or do anything, either publicly or in private, that could not decently figure into the imperial daybook. He took severe measures to prevent them forming friendships without his consent.”135 It is not difficult to see why someone in Julia’s situation might seek out affection elsewhere or feel the need to rebel as she had virtually no control over her own life.

Judith Ginsberg also discusses the political significance of imperial women being implicated in sexual transgressions. In the patriarchal Roman society, women were always under the control of a man, generally their father or husband. Therefore, women participating in

“unsavory” acts, such as infidelity, reflected poorly on the males of the household who were seen as not having control over the family. As Ginsberg points out, “when the family in question was the imperial family and the husband the emperor, the implications of the moral breach were far more telling. Unchecked sexual transgression in an imperial wife – emblematic of the emperor’s failure to guarantee order in his own household – impugned not just the emperor’s masculinity but his political power.”136 Straying wives also cast doubt on the legitimacy of royal children. If the emperor was unable to maintain order within his own family, then it could be argued that he could not maintain order within the state.

134 Syme, The Roman Revolution, 345, 422. 135 Suetonius, Divus Augustus 64. 136 Ginsberg, Representing Agrippina, 123. Haire 42

While Julia is, in some ways, more complex than many of the other women in I,

Claudius, she is still limited to stereotypes in many ways. She is one of the first, if not the first person who seems to know that Livia is behind the tragedies that continually befall the Imperial

Family.137 It can be argued that the I, Claudius producers are telling the “real” history regarding

Julia as their representation does closely follow the ancient sources. However, as demonstrated above, historians have offered different interpretations of Julia’s actions that do not contradict the ancient sources but do cast Julia in a more sympathetic and favorable light. Lacking the training of professional historians and with different goals in mind, those behind I, Claudius fail to find or choose to ignore this Julia in the ancient sources, instead following Graves’ biased interpretation of Julia and devoting much of her screen time to gossiping, her alleged infidelities, and reacting hysterically to bad news. Her affairs do not appear to be politically motivated in I, Claudius and the show depicts her as engaging in affairs with more than the five men alleged by the ancient sources. Still, she is one of the only women who does not spend her time plotting murders and she is not totally lacking in intelligence, demonstrating some awareness of the current political climate. I, Claudius’ Julia is a slightly more nuanced version of the one found in the ancient sources; however, in many ways she is reduced to a sex- obsessed peddler of gossip prone to bouts of hysteria.

Morally Upstanding: Agrippina in the Ancient Sources

Agrippina, granddaughter of Augustus and mother of Caligula, is described by Tacitus as

“the unmatched model of traditional behavior.”138 Her “impressive record as wife and mother” made her worthy of praise in ancient Roman society.139 Tacitus further notes that Agrippina was

137 Note that in the I, Claudius novel it is Tiberius, not Julia, who first suspects Livia of wrongdoing. 138 Tacitus, Annals 3.4. 139 Tacitus, Annals 1.41. Haire 43

one of the people credited with avenging her husband’s death.140 Despite Tacitus’ initial praise

of Agrippina, once she started standing up to Tiberius his tone shifts slightly. He lays much of

the blame for Agrippina’s family’s downfall at her feet and later describes her as “always

violent” when she confronted Tiberius about the persecution of her friends and family.141

Suetonius and Dio characterize Agrippina in much the same way, and Suetonius even notes that

Augustus once praised Agrippina’s intelligence in a letter.142

“You look like a Greek tragedy:” Agrippina in I, Claudius

Agrippina is arguably the least problematic depiction of a woman in I, Claudius, which

generally follows Graves’ novels.143 After her husband Germanicus dies at the beginning of

episode five, she spends the rest of the episode plotting with Castor to put those responsible on

trial. She repeatedly confronts Tiberius about his role in Germanicus’ death and about the

banishment of several of her friends, all while worrying about the safety of her sons as they are

potential rivals to Tiberius. Even in her final appearance, brought before Tiberius in chains and

facing exile, she does not let up, going so far as to spit in Tiberius’ face. Furthermore, she tells

Tiberius that he only thinks he rules Rome, but it is really Sejanus who rules Rome. Ultimately,

Agrippina is banished to the same island as her mother Julia.

Agrippina’s depiction in I, Claudius is a refreshing example of the show actually defying sexist

stereotypes, perhaps indicating the influence of second-wave feminism. Graves also depicts

Agrippina in a less sexist way than many of the other women in the novel; however, the

140 Tacitus, Annals 3.18. 141 “Agrippina’s ill-conceived maternal ambitions, only hastened the family’s ruin,” Tacitus, Annals 4.12. See also Annals 4.52. 142 Suetonius, Divus Augustus 86. See also Tiberius 53 and Dio Cassius, Roman History 57.6.6-7, 57.22.4, 58.22.4-5. 143 Graves describes Agrippina as “the typical Roman matron of ancient legend – strong, courageous, modest, witty, pious, fertile and chaste,” 149. Haire 44 language he uses to describe Agrippina’s “good” qualities echoes the ideals of the ancient

Roman men who originally wrote about her. While the ancient sources are initially less harsh in their descriptions of Agrippina, they eventually revert to describing her in misogynistic terms once she starts acting out of line with their ideal vision of a Roman woman. While I, Claudius does limit Agrippina to the traditional mother role, the show allows Agrippina to repeatedly stand up for herself and her family without undercutting her actions by later reducing her to a more “typical” evil or weak female character.

Conclusion

I, Claudius ties women to anti-Democratic ideals by portraying many of them as strong supporters of monarchical government and the power it offers while portraying most of the men as staunch supporters of democracy. Given the show’s primary audience of British and

American viewers, where democracy is so highly valued, it is to be expected that such an audience would root against these women. Women who are not tied to these political ideals are, for the most part, depicted merely as passive objects. While I, Claudius does, in some instances, offer a more enlightened take on women than can be found in the ancient sources or in Graves’ novels, such examples are few and far between, and – more often than not – I, Claudius even exaggerates the evil portrait of women provided by our ancient sources, which are already patriarchal at best and misogynistic at worst.

Viewers of I, Claudius repeatedly watch villainous women ruin the lives of good men in their pursuit of power. The portrayals of Livia, Livilla, Messalina, and Agrippinilla all perpetuate the idea that intelligent, ambitious women must resort to evil means to accomplish their goals. Even the non-villainous women are depicted in stereotypically disparaging ways.

Though a sightly more nuanced depiction of a woman, Julia spends much of her time engaging Haire 45 in adulterous affairs. Antonia remains passive and oblivious throughout most of the series and is so sickened when she finally learns what has been happening in her family that she ultimately takes her own life. Agrippina is depicted in the least disparaging way, as a strong outspoken woman, though in the traditional role of a mother protecting her children.

Adulterous affairs, multiple poisonings, and false rape allegations can all spark fear in men and help keep women outside of the power structure, just as they were in ancient Rome. By failing to recognize, or choosing to ignore, the biased nature of ancient primary sources and

Graves’ skewed interpretations, and then even to go beyond those biases in many cases, especially regarding women, the male producers of I, Claudius reveal not only their lack of historical training but also their own ignorance and biases, as well as those of their contemporary 1970s English and American societies, in how they view women.

Haire 46

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Dio, Cassius. Roman History: Books 51-55. Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Translated by Earnest Clay. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917.

Dio, Cassius. Roman History: Books 56-60. Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Translated by Earnest Clay. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917.

Dio, Cassius. The Roman History: The Reign of Augustus. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.

Mellor, Ronald. The Historians of Ancient Rome: An Anthology of the Major Writings. London: Routledge, 2013.

Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. Translated by Robert Graves. New York: Penguin Classics, 2007.

Tacitus. Annals. In The Historians of Ancient Rome: An Anthology of the Major Writings, by Ronald Mellor, 306-365. London: Routledge, 2013.

Tacitus. The Annals of Imperial Rome. Translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Books, 1996. Multimedia

Duncalf, Bill, dir. The Epic That Never Was. 1965; Silver Spring: Acorn Media, 2011, DVD.

Vanezis, Pail, dir. I, Claudius: A Television Epic. 2002; Silver Spring: Acorn Media, 2011, DVD.

Wise, Herbert, dir. I, Claudius. 1976; Silver Spring: Acorn Media, 2011, DVD.

Secondary Sources

Alston, Richard. Rome’s Revolution: Death of the Republic and Birth of the Empire. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Beard, Mary. Women & Power: A Manifesto. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2017.

Bennett, Judith M. History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenges of Feminism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.

Haire 47

Blanshard, Alastair J.L. and Kim Shahabudin. Classics on Screen: Ancient Greece and Rome on Film. London: Bloomsbury, 2011.

Carnes, Mark C., ed. Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1995.

Casetti, Francesco. Theories of Cinema, 1945-1995. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999.

Cyrino, Monica S., ed. Screening Love and Sex in the Ancient World. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013.

Dennison, Matthew. Livia: Empress of Rome. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2010.

Douglas, Susan J. Where the Girls Are: Growing up Female with the Mass Media. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1994.

Duncalf, Bill, dir. The Epic That Never Was. 1965; Silver Spring, MD: Acorn Media, 2011.

Erens, Patricia, ed. Issues in Feminist Film Criticism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990.

Fantham, Elaine. Julia Augusti: The Emperor’s Daughter. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Freisenbruch, Annelise. The First Ladies of Rome: The Women Behind the Caesars. London: Vintage Books, 2010.

Furstenau, Marc, ed. The Film Theory Reader: Debates and Arguments. New York: Routledge, 2010.

Ginsberg, Judith. Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Graves, Robert. Claudius the God. New York: Vintage International, 1935.

Graves, Robert. I, Claudius. New York: Random House, 1934.

Gunew, Sneja. Feminist Knowledge: Critique and Construct. London: Routledge, 1990.

Haskell, Molly. From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment of Women in the Movies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2016.

Joshel, Sandra R. “Female Desire and the Discourse of Empire: Tacitus’s Messalina.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 21, no. 1 (1995): 50-82. https://www-jstor- org.ezproxy.csusm.edu/stable/3175122?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Joshel, Sandra R., Margaret Malamud, and Donald T. McGuire, Jr., eds. Imperial Projections: Ancient Rome in Modern Popular Culture. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Haire 48

Press, 2001.

Kaplan, E. Ann. Feminism and Film. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Kaplan, E. Ann. Women and Film: Both Sides of the Camera. London: Routledge, 1983.

Kelly, Joan. Women, History and Theory: The Essays of Joan Kelly. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

Lacob, Jace. “PBS’ ‘I, Claudius’ Still Captivates With its Taut Drama.” Daily Beast, July 13, 2017. https://www.thedailybeast.com/pbs-i-claudius-still-captivates-with-its-taut-drama

Lerner, Gerda. The Majority Finds its Past: Placing Women in History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Levick, Barbara M. “Antiquarian or Revolutionary? Claudius Caesar’s Perception of His Principate.” The American Journal of Philology 99, no. 1 (1978): 79-105. https://doi- org.ezproxy.csusm.edu/10.2307/293870

Levick, Barbara. Augustus: Image and Substance. New York: Routledge, 2010.

Levick, Barbara. Claudius. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.

McNamara, Mary. “Critic’s Notebook: ‘I, Claudius’ left its bloody, sinister mark on TV drama.” Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2012.Newspaper (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la- xpm-2012- may-06-la-ca-critics-notebook-claudius-20120506-story.html)

Mellor, Ronald, ed. From Augustus to Nero: The First Dynasty of Imperial Rome. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1990.

Mellor, Ronald. Tacitus. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Mellor, Ronald. Tacitus’ Annals. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

O’Gorman, Ellen. Irony and Misreading in the Annals of Tacitus. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Penley, Constance, ed. Feminism and Film Theory. New York: Routledge, 1988.

Pietropaulo, Laura and Ada Testaferri, eds. Feminisms in the Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995.

Poniewozik, James. “All-TIME 100 TV Shows.” Time Magazine, September 6, 2007. Time (https://time.com/collection/all-time-100-tv-shows/)

Haire 49

Renger, Almut-Barbara and Jon Solomon, eds. Ancient Worlds in Film and Television: Gender and Politics. Boston: Brill, 2013.

Riley, Denise. Am I That Name? Feminism and the Category of Women in History. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988.

Rosenstone, Robert A. History on Film/Film on History. New York: Routledge, 2012.

Rosenstone, Robert A. Visions of the Past: The Challenge of Film to our Idea of History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Ryberg, Inez Scott. “Tacitus’ Art of Innuendo.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 73, (1942): 383-404. https://doi.org/10.2307/283558.

Scholz, Sally J. Feminism: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: Oneworld, 2010.

Scramuzza, Vincent M. The Emperor Claudius. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940.

Solomon, Jon. The Ancient World in the Cinema. London: Yale University Press, 2001.

Sullivan, Donald. “Innuendo and the ‘weighted alternative’ in Tacitus” The Classical Journal 71, no. 4 (1976): 312-326. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3298494.

Syme, Ronald. The Augustan Aristocracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Syme, Ronald. The Roman Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939.

Syme, Ronald. Tacitus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958.

Toplin, Robert Brent. History by Hollywood. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2009.

Wilson, Jean Moorcroft. Robert Graves: From Great War Poet to Good-bye to All That (1895- 1929). London: Bloomsbury, 2018.

Wimsatt, W. K., and M. C. Beardsley. "The Intentional Fallacy." The Sewanee Review 54, no. 3 (1946): 468-88. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27537676.

Winkler, Martin M., ed. Gladiator: Film and History. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

Wyke, Maria. Projecting the Past: Ancient Rome, Cinema and History. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Zinsser, Judith P. History and Feminism: A Glass Half Full. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1993.