Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Alžběta Komrsková

Stereotypical Depiction of Female Characters in 's novel I, Claudius

Bachelor's Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Prof. Mgr. Milada Franková, CSc, M.A. 2021 / declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

Author's signature Acknowledgement:

I would like to thank my supervisor prof. Mgr. Milada Franková, CSc., M.A Table of Contents

Introduction 5

1 Robert Von Ranke Graves 7

1.1 Graves and Feminism 8

1.2 Graves as Historian 10

1.3 Graves vs. Claudius 12

2 Historical Analysis 13

2.1 Women in Ancient Rome 13

2.2 Women in 1920s 16

3 Literary Analysis 19

3.1 Livia 19

3.2 Julia the Elder 28

3.3Livilla 32

Conclusion 40

Works Cited 42

Summary 45

Resume 46 Introduction

Robert Graves is a well-known British author, and his novel /, Claudius is one of his most famous works, mainly due to the television adaptation. The novel and the TV series created a certain notion about the civilization of ancient Rome as a cruel society full of intrigues and murders among the members of the royal family, and especially among the royal women. This diploma thesis deals with Graves's strongly misogynistic and stereotypical depiction of female characters.

The ancient Rome was certainly a cruel place for women. They did not have many rights; they were traditionally viewed as caretakers and mothers and especially as subordinates to their male relatives. But history reveals that many great women of that period were not content with these firmly appointed roles ascribed to them by their gender. Graves's novel offers many examples, such as Livia, the Empress of Rome and the wife of Augustus, the adoptive son of Julius Caesar. But even though we could retrospectively call Graves a feminist in his ideals, he views history and historical figures through the lenses of manhood and patriarchy. Not only is his novel narrated in first person by Claudius, the Emperor of Rome, but Graves also chooses historical sources written by men strongly misogynistic in their capturing of history, for example Tacitus or Suetonius. Women are often forgotten in their writings, and the documented fragments of their lives frequently falsely characterize them as heartless murderers, shameless adulteresses and scheming politicians.

Many of these things did not change in the first half of the 20th century, the time when the novel was written. While women called for their right to vote and their right to actively participate in political life, many men viewed them as intruders in the natural order of things.

Outspoken, determined women were still viewed as something negative and undesirable.

The ancient image of "honourable matron" was still very alive and well.

5 At the beginning of the thesis, I briefly introduce the author of the novel, Robert

Graves, and his work as a historian and a writer. I analyse his approach to feminism, that was on the rise during the process of the creation of the novel.

In the historical analysis part, I focus on two periods that are crucial for this thesis, the ancient Rome and the 1920s, to briefly summarize the social status of women and to find parallels between these two periods of history.

In the literary analysis part, I introduce the main female characters and then analyse them through the close reading method. The novel is compared to other historical sources to discover patterns of stereotypical characterization of female figures in the novel.

6 1 Robert Von Ranke Graves

Robert von Ranke Graves was born in 1895 in Wimbledon to , an Irish poet, and Amelie Elisabeth von Ranke, the niece of the historian Leopold von Ranke.

"A strong streak of puritanism, which his love of women never entirely overwhelmed, was instilled at an early age. His mother was religious and high-minded ... from his mother, he gained a lifelong, if unorthodox, fascination with biblical history and a sense of women as pure beings, not to be associated with sexual thoughts or deeds" (Seymour 17). He grew up in the early 20th century, which was still a time of very strict perception of gender roles, in some sense further emphasized by the war. Graves fought on the front line, but he was wounded and removed from the front (Firla). Upon his return back home to England, he suffered from a shellshock and "remained deeply troubled by his war experiences for at least a decade" (Tikkanen).

The war was an important influence not only because of the psychological trauma it caused - it also formed Graves's friendship with other war poets, which in the case of

Siegfried Sassoon developed into some kind of romantic relationship. The question of

Graves's sexuality is raised in his biography by Miranda Seymour. She describes his many platonic crushes on his schoolmates in the all-boys school he attended. On the other hand, in his autobiography Good-by to All That Graves himself does not identify as bisexual, as he called that part of his youth as "pseudo-homosexual" phase, caused by "the public school system" (45).

Not only Graves's relationships with men, but also his relationships with women were very unconventional, especially for the first half of the twentieth century. After the war, he married and had four children with her. She supported him during his studies, but their marriage ended in divorce. One of the causes of their split was his

7 complicated relationship with another poet, : "Graves and Nicholson then invited

Riding to join them on their move to Egypt. Over time the three became very close, forming more of a relationship than friendship" (Shirley). Graves eventually left his wife for Riding.

In 1929, Graves and Riding moved to Majorca, and it was exactly this Mediterranean island where (perhaps inspired by the atmosphere of the place) he wrote his novel /, Cladius, its sequel Claudius the God and his Wife Messalina, and also a few other novels inspired by the ancient Greco-Roman world, such as , Seven days on New Crete, and

The Greek Myths (Hammer).

In the end, Majorca proved to be Graves's greater love than Riding - while he spent much of his life there, the relationship with Riding soon ended. "Eventually Graves met his second wife Beryl, had a family and lived out a very happy life. Much of this time was focused on his poetry; it is believed these writings were influenced by events and people within his lifetime" (Shirley).

1.1 Graves and Feminism

To understand Graves's approach to women and feminism in general, it is necessary to take a closer look at the women in his life. While his very religious, conservative mother had certainly great influence over Graves's perception of women (as mentioned in the previous subchapter), his love interests represent the very opposite of the way his mother viewed the world and women's place in it.

Nancy Nicholson, Graves's first wife, was without doubts a feminist. She stood for ideals that his mother would probably not approve, especially her opinion on religion and woman's emancipation. Nicholson was certainly not a traditional, submissive wife - for example, she refused to take Graves's last name after their marriage - but Graves seemed to

8 be unbothered by her progressive opinions and ideals. In fact, he describes almost a relief upon his first encounter with the notion of equality between sexes:

Of course I also accepted the whole patriarchal system of things. It is difficult now to

recall how completely I believed in the natural supremacy of male over female. I never

heard it even questioned until I met Nancy ... The surprising sense of ease that I got

from her frank statement of equality between sexes was among my chief reasons for

liking her. My mother had always taken the 'love, honour, and obey' contract literally;

my sisters were brought up to wish themselves boys, to be shocked at the idea of

woman's suffrage ... Nancy's crude summary, "God is a man, so it must be all rot,'

took a load off my shoulders" (Good-by to All That 51).

Laura Riding, for whom he eventually left Nicholson, was no less of a feminist. But she not only had very progressive opinions on the role of women in the modern society; she also lived them. On the intellectual level, she was Graves's equal, well-educated, determined, and already a successful poet when they met for the first time:

Laura Riding could have been seen as a prototype of the emancipated woman. She had

received two scholarships to Cornell University, had been admitted into an all-male

fraternity of Southern writers ... had published nineteen books of poetry, criticism,

and short stories ... As a woman who had achieved an extraordinary degree of success

in a man's world, Riding was uniquely qualified to look at feminist ideas from a

vantage point still denied most women (Friedman and Clark).

From these two examples, it is clear that Graves surrounded himself with confident, emancipated women that strongly influenced his worldview and his writing. While Nicholson was the one to open his eyes to the possibility of the equality of sexes, Riding inspired one of his works about the ancient myths and matriarchal cultures, The White Goddess. Through this book, published in 1948, Graves "makes an essential appeal to the female as sovereign

9 remedy for the ills of an industrialised world, awry and foundering in its own destructiveness"

(Quinn 229). All the more surprising is Graves's stereotypical and misogynistic approach to female characters in I, Claudius.

1.2 Graves as Historian

Since Graves was only nineteen years old when the war started, he did not start his university studies until 1919, at the age of twenty-four. He describes in his biography that he was accepted to Oxford and changed his course to English Language and Literature (Good• bye to All That 64). He had already studied Latin and Greek at the Charterhouse, but he was not fond enough of the classical languages to study them at Oxford: "I did no Latin or Greek there, though I had a Classical Exhibition" (63).

But dead languages proved to be quite useful for his career as a writer. Not only did he translate many classical pieces from Latin and Greek into English, but the knowledge of these classical language proved to be useful and resulted in many popular historical novels. I,

Claudius, published in 1934, was an immediate success (Seymour 263) and the sequel soon followed; but so did the critique by historians. Graves, not an actual historian himself, was accused of merely stitching together episodes of Suetonius and Tacitus (Harvey 12). He reacted to these accusations in the preface of the second novel, Claudius the God, and His

Wife Messalina:

Some reviewers of /, Claudius, the prefatory volume to Claudius the God, suggested

that in writing it I had merely consulted Tacitus's Annals and Suetonius's Twelve

Caesars, run them together, and expanded the result with my own 'vigorous fancy'.

This was not so; nor is it the case here. Among the Classical writers who have been

borrowed from in the composition of Claudius the God are Tacitus, Dio Cassius,

Suetonius, Pliny, Varro, Valerius Maximus, Orosius, Frontinus, Strabo, Caesar,

10 Columella, Plutarch, Josephus, Diodorus Siculus, Photius, Xiphilinus, Zonaras,

Seneca, Petronius, Juvenal, Philo, Celsus, the authors of the Acts of the Apostles and of

the pseudo-gospels of Nicodemus and St James, and Claudius himself in his surviving

letters and speeches ... No character is invented (8)

Graves found many important details that brought the story to life in the works of

these authors, but majority of the critiques agree that the main sources for the novel are in fact

Tacitus and Suetonius. This information is crucial for this thesis, because the work of these

two authors is undoubtedly the most important source for Graves's depiction of female

characters, as women are generally scarcely mentioned by ancient authors. While Suetonius is

the reason behind the kind of "gossipy" nature of the novel (Harvey 12), Tacitus probably

greatly influenced the negative description of women with political power, such as Livia, the

wife of Augustus:

As several recent studies have emphasized, moreover, Tacitus simply did not

appreciate educated, competent women. This misogynist assumed that power in the

hands of women would be misused, usually in a criminal fashion. Hence practically all

the women in Tacitus's Annals are scheming, power-hungry, potential (if not actual)

criminal (Harvey 12).

According to the article by Paul B. Harvey, published in The Classical Outlook journal, it was a very common practice to accuse the wife or the daughter of murdering her

family member, who actually died naturally. To modern historians, it is clear that the many

accusations of murder within the imperial family were often false, but Graves decided to

make full use of these motifs in his novel: "Tacitus merely elevated these assumptions to the

level of consistent innuendo; Graves made the innuendoes actual, but quite unprovable,

murder" (Harvey 12).

11 1.3 Graves vs. Claudius

Since the novel is narrated by Claudius, the line between Graves's authorial voice and

Claudius himself is kind of blurry, especially considering the fact that we do not have many sources on Claudius as a private person - it is almost impossible to firmly establish his personality, flaws, opinions, and thoughts; only the historians' remarks on them. This gives the author an enormous power to mould the character to fit his story and to gain the sympathy of the reader. As Graves mentions in the author's note at the beginning of the novel, the main source for Claudius's voice were the fragments of Claudius's Aeduan speech, which is probably just a "transcript of the official shorthand record of Claudius's exact words to senate", not his actual writing style, and his Greek letter to Alexandrian (Graves 4), which might be good source to identify his literary style, but still not enough to understand his overall motivations and opinions.

As Barry Unsworth notes in the introduction to the novel, "it is Graves that gives him a voice" (vi) - this means that many of Claudius's personal traits and interests reflects

Graves's own interests and opinions. Great example could be the detailed description of the

Roman army. While Claudius, a historian, might not be inherently interested in such a topic,

Graves had a very personal experience with army and war and therefore it was only natural for him to dive deeper into the problematics from time to time. Similarly, Graves significantly highlights Claudius's interest in the restoration of Roman republic, which might more or less reflect Graves's own opinion on democracy, since it was one of the most crucial concerns of the 1930s, a decade when many authoritarian regimes were on the rise across Europe. And, most importantly, it is also a clear indication that the depiction of female characters might as well reflect Graves's personal view, influenced by the mentality of the time in which it was written, since Graves undisputedly cherry-picks sources and forms Claudius voice on the basis of fragments of his actual writing.

12 2 Historical Analysis

When analysing a historical novel, it is important to be aware of the social customs and ideologies of the time the story takes place in and of the time the novel was actually written. Not only is the historical context sometimes more important that the author of the novel, but it is also quite useful instrument in understanding the credibility of the primary sources the author used. As mentioned in previous chapter, sources are often burdened by ideologies and the worldview of their author (Tacitus and his hatred of powerful women being the prime example). Similarly, the optics of the period in which the sources are analysed can influence the ability of the researcher to clearly see the bias of the source. As Phillip Burton writes in his article "Satirical Elements in Robert Graves's Claudius Novels": "The Claudius novels ... are primarily works of a historical fiction. This, however, does not of itself preclude the possibility that they may contain allusions to the world in which and for which they were written" (198).

This chapter analyses general societal approach to women in these two periods in order to reveal the influence of prevailing ideologies on the way women are viewed and portrayed.

2.1 Women in Ancient Rome

The position of women in the society of the ancient world is the subject of many studies and can be viewed from many perspectives, but these have all one thing in common - their source material is almost exclusively written from male perspective. It is necessary to realize that almost every text from this period is written by a man; we view the ancient Rome and its women through male eyes. It is important to bear in mind that "Roman written sources

... are hugely complicated by ambiguities, gaps, bias and agendas. Above all, ancient

13 historians were often critical of women in power and used them as 'proof of the degeneracy and inadequacies of emperors" (De La Bédoyére 1). As mentioned in the previous chapter, the demonization of women in power is therefore often the product of the misogynistic worldview of its author.

But even though the sources we have today are often very subjective in their nature, it is still possible to study things that are in inherently objective, such as the position of women in the eyes of law, or the gender roles and ideals of the time. They might not have an informative value in the sense of revealing the actual personality and motivation of the female historical figures, but they can be helpful in uncovering the reasoning behind the stereotyping of these women as very negative characters.

And just as we relate the state of our society to the older days, Romans certainly looked back in similar sentiment. Women in Rome did not enjoy the freedoms of modern women, but in comparison to ancient Greece, their situation was much better. In Greece, women (even in the upper classes) were restricted to producing heirs, managing their husband's houses and practicing religion. "There is not a woman in politics in Athens from beginning to end" (Putnam 4). This complete erasure of Greek women from history is not a coincidence, and the exaggeration of the "evilness" of well-known Roman women is not a coincidence either. Jack Holland summed this up in his book A Brief History of Misogyny:

Roman women were the Greek male nightmare come true. They defied the

misogynistic dictate (attributed to the Athenian statesman Pericles) that a good woman

is one who is not talked about, even in praise. Obeying this had consigned the good

women of fifth-century BC Athens to complete oblivion; today, not a single one is

known by name. But the women of Rome made themselves known; a few have been

talked about ever since. In Rome, the veil of their anonymity was lifted. Women

entered the public sphere and made history. They intervened in wars and stopped

14 them; they took to the streets in protest at government policy and changed it ... They

subverted the authority of their fathers; they even sought personal satisfaction in their

relationships and rejected their role as breeders of rulers; and, perhaps most

disturbingly of all, they came tantalizingly close to political power (40-41).

In her book The Lady, Emily Putnam writes about the Roman women in a very similar tone. She explains that the women of Rome greatly differed from their Greece counterparts.

Not only in the less strict rules that bounded their everyday life, but especially in the way they viewed their involvement in political and societal affairs: "There is nothing in Roman traditions that corresponds in the least with Homer's lady" (42). History offers many examples of Roman women being politically active, even though only through their male relatives, as "[women] did not vote, could not hold (secular) office, and their presence, it seems, was forbidden in voting assemblies" (Keegan 3). In the perspective of these laws, and also of the deep admiration the Romans had for Hellenism, it is not hard to understand the displeasure over women involved in politics, which is so obvious from the many texts of this period.

Another important difference between the Greek and Roman women was the access to education. While Greek women were usually uneducated, as only some girls were taught to read and write by their mothers in order to manage the household (Putnam 12), the Roman women were less restricted in this area: "Some girls may have gone to school, at least for primary schooling, and some had private tutors" (Clark 199). But any higher education or intellectual interests were not encouraged or desired in women. Great example of this resentment against educated women can be found in Juvenal's Satire, even though it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as Juvenal was a satirical writer, and his beliefs were probably the exaggeration of general opinions:

15 I loathe a woman who ... recites from Palaemon's Grammar, always observes the

laws and rules of speech, a woman learned in antiquities, who knows lines from the

ancients unknown to me. Does any man care? ... In fact, if she must appear so

excessively learned and eloquent, she may as well be a man, hitch her tunic knee-high,

sacrifice a pig to Silvanus, and only be charged a farthing at the baths (Juvenal, lines

449-457)

From these examples it is quite clear that education, ambition, and eloquence were not highly appreciated traits in women; the notion of ideal women was not that different from the ideals of Athens. Romans considered woman's devotion to her family to be the highest virtue:

"The ideal of Roman womanhood was closely tied to a woman's role in the family. As wife and mother, she embodied the virtues valued by Roman society - beauty, modesty, chastity, fidelity" (Kleiner 17). But in reality, Roman women were too independent to fit into the mould of chastity and silence. As Putnam adds, "they had not been tamed as had the ladies of

Athens by the slow action of long ages of masculine encroachment. They were much nearer the soil and freedom. The men had not had time to bring them thoroughly into subjection, and yet were both unable and unwilling to set them free" (48). This tension presumably resulted into the many women-despising texts that often depict the well-known Roman women, such as Livia, as malicious and distorted characters.

2.2 Women in 1920s

As already mentioned, the first world war greatly influenced Robert Graves's life, but the men who fought on the front were not the only ones affected. During the war years, women had to work in fields traditionally ascribed to men (such as farming or factory jobs) in order to replace the men that had gone to fight. "Women's employment rates increased during

WWI, from 23.6% of the working age population in 1914 to between 37.7% and 46.7% in

16 1918 ... The employment of married women increased sharply - accounting for nearly 40% of all women workers by 1918" (Braybon 49).

After the war, the suffragettes won their case, and women, who sacrificed as much as the men for their country during the war years, were granted the right to vote, even though only partially: "On 14 December 1918, women, providing they were over 30 and they or their husbands were an occupier of property, were able to vote in a general election for the first time" (Hamilton). Women excluded by their age or lack of property had to wait until 1928.

But even though the post war years might seem like a time when women finally freed themselves of the traditional roles and expectations, it was not that straightforward. As men returned home from the front and pushed many women away from their jobs, the whole societal approach to the idea of independent working woman involved in politics was almost identical to the pre-war years. Graves himself points this problem out in his book The Long

Week-end: A Social History of Great Britain 1918-1939, where he observes that "the women who only a year of so earlier had been acclaimed as patriots, giving up easy lives at home to work for their country in her hour of need, were now represented as vampires who deprived men of their rightful jobs" (44). This sentiment was even exaggerated by the ideal of a woman who in time of peace returns to her rightful place as a mother and wife: "In the inter-war years only one desirable image was held up to women by all mainstream media agencies - that of housewife and mother. This single role model was presented to women to follow and all other alternative roles were presented as wholly undesirable" (Beddoe 8).

On the other hand, young women, who experienced the changes in gender roles during the war years, were not so enthusiastic about returning to the previous state of things. "Some women publicly embraced new access to traditionally male occupations and had no wish to relinquish them when the war was over ... Yet women's full participation in political life remained limited ... Socially, certain demographic trends that were prevalent before the war

17 persisted after it. Family sizes continued to shrink despite renewed anxiety about falling birth rates and ongoing insistence on the significance of motherhood for women and their nations"

(Grayzel).

In a sense, we can see similar tension between the traditional view on women's role and their actual lifestyle as in the ancient Rome. Within this context, Graves's sort of backward take on depicting politically active women as unnatural and negative is understandable; event though Graves was on board with the idea of equality between sexes, it is clear that his view on women was still very traditional and influenced by the norms of that time, especially when we compare I, Claudius with Graves's later work, such as White

Goddess.

18 3 Literary Analysis

To understand the extent of Graves's reliance on historical sources versus his own imagination and fabrication, it is necessary to closely analyse not only the novel itself and the primary sources Graves used, but also other accessible texts documenting the characters in question. Even though it is almost impossible to create a reliable, comprehensive portrait of them, since "the lives of empresses and imperial women [were] invariably ... pieced together from incidental references in the works of men like Tacitus and Dio or the biographies of emperors" (De La Bedoyere 3), it is still possible to at least partially disrupt the stereotypical, cartoonish portrayal popularized by Graves's novel.

This part of the thesis examines the major female characters in order to analyse the actual historical figures and compare them to Graves's adaptation in I, Claudius. While the novel contains a great number of stereotypically portrayed female characters, such as

Urgulania, Agripinilla, Urgulanilla, Martina, Plancina, Julilla or Aelia, the analysis focuses on the three most prominent female characters with important roles within the story. Each of them is an embodiment of a misogynist stereotype: Livia, the power hungry, wicked stepmother; Julia, the easily manipulated stepdaughter that falls prey to Livia's machinations and her own promiscuity; and eventually Livilla, the evil, cunning sister.

3.1 Livia

Regardless of her depiction in Graves's novel, Livia was one of the most important women in the history of ancient Rome. She was born on 30 January 58 BC and died in AD 29

(Barret 9), which means she lived to be eighty-six years old. In a world where female life expectancy was far shorter than today, whether due to high mortality in childbirth or frequent assassinations of the members of the imperial family, it was without doubts a remarkable age.

19 And as Anthony Barrett writes in the preface of Livia's biography Livia, the First Lady of

Imperial Rome, "the simple fact that she survived intact and unscathed for more than sixty years at the very heart of Roman power—and, perhaps more remarkably, was revered and admired for many generations more after her death—is a testament to her adroit ability to win the support, sympathy and even affection of her contemporaries" (x).

And just as Livia remains an important character in the stream of history, she is undoubtedly one of the most prominent figures in Graves's novel. There is almost not a single chapter where her name would not be mentioned. Claudius himself acknowledges Livia's prominence in the story by calling her "the chief character" (14). Livia is first mentioned in the very first chapter, where she is referred to as a "remarkable and abominable woman" (6), so far without evidence to substantiate this claim. But throughout the rest of the novel,

Claudius persistently convinces the reader of Livia's terrible nature and horrific deeds, and especially of her lust for power (21).

In the following chapter, Claudius begins to explain the complicated relationships and connections between his many relatives. He is quick to indicate Livia's desire to rule the family matters: "After my father's death she became the virtual head of our family, supplanting my Antónia, my uncle Tiberius (the legal head), and Augustus himself (14). On the following page, the reader is assured that this hunger for power is in no case a positive trait, as Claudius recalls an old popular ballad about the Claudian family, according to which there are bad and good apples in the clan. Livia is without doubts one of the crabs: "My grandmother Livia was one of the worst Claudians" (16). The ballad itself is not based on a particular source and it is therefore Graves's pure fabrication, which clearly shows his intention with the novel; he is not interested in creating morally grey characters with complex motivations, but rather black and white figures, exaggerated versions of their actual footprints in history.

20 As Claudius proceeds in informing the reader about the history of his family, he states that Livia "had picked on Augustus as a better instrument for her ambition that Anthony ...

She urged him to put away Scribonia ... telling him that she had knowledge of Scribonia's adultery" (17). From this short excerpt, it is clear that Livia is not a positive character, as she will do anything in her power to gain access to power.

But when we look at the actual historical sources, the tale of Augustus's divorce and

Livia underlying intentions are not that straightforward. In Lives of Twelve Caesars,

Suetonius comments on these events rather frankly and without any indications of Livia's involvement: "This wife [Scribonia] also he divorced, not able to endure, as he himself writes, the perverseness of her temper; and forthwith he took from Tiberius Nero, Livia Drusilla, his lawful wife, who was then with child; and her he loved entirely to the very end" (102). The reason behind the divorce with Scribonia is mentioned later in the biography, when Suetonius explains details of Augustus's extramarital affairs: "He put away Scribonia, because she resented too openly the great ascendancy which one of his mistresses had obtained over him"

(107). But again, there is no implication that this mistress was Livia, let alone she was his mistress at all. Tacitus's Annals, on the other hand, describe the divorce and marriage as somewhat forced on Livia - Tacitus suggests that Augustus took Livia away from her first husband Tiberius Claudius Nero (12). Any involvement from Livia is not implied.

After Graves proceeds to describe the wedding, he does not hesitate to indirectly inform the reader about Livia's fondness of poisoning her opponents. She is described as annoyed by the way her children were educated by their father, Tiberius Claudius Nero:

"Livia had long grudged that her two boys were out of her charge ... My grandfather

[Tiberius Claudius Nero] died suddenly while dining with some friends, and it was suspected that he had been poisoned, but the matter was hushed up because ... Livia had been among the quests" (19). This paragraph is clearly intended to negatively depict Livia as a woman

21 who is overly interested in the way her children are educated, and it also suggests that she poisoned her children's father in order to regain her influence over them. Not only is it quite understandable thing that a mother wants to oversee the education of her own children, but the accusation of the murder is a pure fiction, as it is not based on any historical source or any other evidence. In fact, there is not much information about Livia's first husband death.

Suetonius simply declares that he died not long after Livia married Augustus, leaving behind his two sons, Tiberius and Drusus {Lives of Twelve Caesars 136).

But this was not the last occurrence of Graves's implications that Livia was a poisoner, in fact, it is a reoccurring theme that is continuously used as an instrument to depict

Livia as a power-hungry character whose ambitions have no boundaries. Soon after Graves, respectively Claudius, implies that Livia was involved in the death of her former husband, he raises the question of another possible poisoning, this time in relation to her second husband

Augustus. In this case, it does not end in his death, but Claudius strongly implies that Livia used poison in order to gain power over Augustus to set her political machinations in motion:

Augustus caught a slight chill which took unexpected turn, with fever and vomiting:

Livia prepared his food with her own hands during this illness, but his stomach was so

delicate that he could keep nothing down. He was growing weaker and weaker and felt

at last that he was on point of death. He had been asked to name his successor ... and

[he] asked Livia to advise him. ... So she made the decision for him, and he agreed to

it. ... And from this moment Augustus began mysteriously to recover ... The credit for

his cure went to ... a certain doctor called Musa. (30-31)

But when we take a look at the source materials, it is clear that much of this incident is

Graves's fabrication. Tacitus does not speak about this matter, so in this case, Graves was certainly inspired by Roman History written by Cassius Dio, a Roman historian from 3rd century AD. This whole incident is covered rather extensively in his writing, even mentioning

22 Augustus miraculous recovery, which is almost identical to Graves's version of the incident.

It also describes similar illness that killed Augustus's favourite nephew Marcellus, who was, up to his uncle's sudden illness (that resulted in him naming Agrippa as his successor), thought to be the one who will take the torch of power from Augustus. Not only was there an epidemic spread throughout Rome at the time (Bontty 85), but again, there is not a single word in Dio's writing that would suggest any involvement from Li via:

[Augustus] fell so ill once more as to have no hope of recovery; at any rate, he

arranged everything as if he were about to die, and gathered about him the magistrates

and the foremost senators and knights. He did not, to be sure, appoint a

successor, although all were expecting that Marcellus would be preferred for this

position, but ... [Augustus] handed his ring to Agrippa. ... yet a certain Antonius

Musa restored him to health by means of cold baths and cold potions. ... for though

Augustus had been saved in this manner, yet when Marcellus fell ill not long afterward

and was treated in the same way by Musa, he died (273)

After comparing Dio's and Graves's takes on the incident, it is clear that while Graves used almost every possible detail from Dio's writing, he also used his imagination to connect the incident with Livia and her ambitions, as it not only adds tension to the story, but also helps to convince the reader of Livia being the antagonist of the imperial family. And since poison was always thought of as a womanly weapon, Graves does not even need to openly declare Livia the poisoner; Claudius simply comments that "luck seemed to be with her" (30).

In similar indirect manner, he accuses Livia of poising her of her own son, Claudius's father Drusus the Elder. Her involvement in his death is foreshadowed by Drusus's letter to his brother Tiberius, in which he criticizes, among others, their mother Livia and her involvement in a presumed tyranny of Augustus's reign: "But I am sorry to say that the secret and illegitimate pride that our mother Livia has always derived from her exercise of supreme

23 power through Augustus will be the greatest hindrance that are likely the to encounter" (40).

Unfortunately, the letter is delivered to Tiberius while he is accompanied by Augustus and

Livia herself, and he is forced to read it out loud. Upon hearing the content of the letter, Livia seems to only care about the health of her dear son, but it is clear that she is furious. While

Augustus is blind to her hidden rage, Tiberius understand very well that he must express support to his mother and despise his brother's words. Eventually, Livia sends a physician to treat Drusus's "mental weakness" (43). Drusus dies just days after the arrival of the doctor, supposedly from a minor horse-fall injury. When Tiberius arrives at his deathbed, Drusus's last words are: "She read my letter? ... Rome has a severe mother: Lucius and Gaius have a dangerous stepmother" (45). And as if the implication of Livia being a poisoner was not apparent enough, Claudius adds an anecdote from Drusus's funeral: "Tiberius, who, it appears, had long suspected that my grandfather had not died a natural death, was resolved not to cross his mother's will in anything. Dining so often at her table he felt completely at her mercy" (45).

But after examining the primary sources in order to find an evidence of Livia's involvement in Drusus's death, it is soon obvious that Graves used just crumbs of actual historical texts and exaggerated them with his own imagination. For example, the letter to

Tiberius does not actually exist, but the sentiment of it is certainly based on general knowledge of Drusus's opinions. In his Lives of Twelve Caesars, Suetonius claims that

Drusus often declared that he would "restore the ancient government" (224). Even Tacitus's

Annals describe Drusus in similar admiring manner: "The memory of Drusus was very dear to the Roman people who had believed that, if the sovereignty ever passed into his hands, he would restore to them their civil liberty" (48).

But when it comes to the actual cause of Drusus's death, the ancient sources differ greatly, except for one thing; none of them mentions Livia. While Cassius Dio's History of

24 Rome says that Drusus "died on the way of some disease before reaching the Rhine" (383),

Livy says that "He died from a fracture caused by the fall of his horse on his leg, thirty days after the accident" (Rome's Mediterranean Empire 308). On the other hand, there actually is one source that mentions the possibility of Drusus being poisoned that happens to be also one of Graves's primary sources - Suetonius. But not only does Suetonius reject the poisoning as a rumour; the rumour does not attribute the crime to Livia, but her husband Augustus: "... some have ventured to affirm that Augustus was jealous of [Drusus] and recalled him; and, because he made no haste to comply with the order, made away with him by poison. This I mention, that I may not be guilty of any omission, more than I think it either true or probable; considering that Augustus loved him so much" {Lives of Twelve Caesars 224).

From the analysis of the primary sources, it is clear that Livia did not murder her own son. Even Drusus's last words, by which Graves accuses Livia of Drusus's murder, Graves borrowed from Annals, where Tacitus comments on the execution of Varro and other various matters not connected to the murder of Drusus: "Livia, that stern mother of the State, and stern step-mother of the house of the Caesars" (10). The murders of Gaius and Lucius, Livia's adoptive sons mentioned by Drusus in Graves's version of Tacitus's line, are also ascribed to

Livia by Graves, and are similarly unprovable as sources vary greatly on this matter (Tacitus and Cassius Dio being in favour of her involvement and Suetonius opposing it). Both brothers died far away from Rome, which complicates the tale of Livia's involvement in their deaths, but the authors of these rumours are suspicious of the timing of Tiberius's return from his exile on Rhode. One way or another, Lucius and Gaius's deaths were certainly beneficial to

Tiberius and the timing surely made room for doubts about the natural causes of their deaths, which Graves probably found very suitable for his stereotypical character of evil stepmother that will do anything in her power to benefit her son.

25 But Gaius and Lucius's deaths were not Graves's most exaggerated and detailed

accusation against Livia. This primacy definitely belongs to the turning point of the novel, the

expulsion of Postumus, the son of Agrippa and Augustus's daughter Julia. In this case, Graves

not only suggests her involvement, but he builds a very detailed story around mere fragments

of historical texts.

To put things in context, Agrippa Postumus, the youngest brother of Gaius and Lucius,

was the only one not adopted by Augustus, which means that unlike his brothers, he did not

stand in Tiberius's way to succession. And even though he was in fact adopted by Augustus

after his brothers' sudden death, he was never intended to be a successor to the emperor - that

position belonged to Tiberius (Mudd 115). Therefore, even if Gaius and Lucius were indeed

removed in order to benefit Tiberius, the expulsion and killing of Postumus could not be justified in this way. In Graves's novel, Postumus's expulsion is ascribed to his reckless

behaviour, especially towards Livia:

'What poisoned you?' [Livia] asks.

[Postumus] replies, grinning, 'Maybe you've been putting something in my soup.'

When she demands an explanation of this extraordinary joke, he replies, grinning still

more vulgarly: 'Putting things in soup is an old trick among stepmothers' (115).

From this short excerpt, it is clear that the purpose of the character of Postumus is to

expose Livia's reaction to the allegations of poisoning. Since Postumus is painted as a positive

character, who protected young Claudius from cruel classmates and a harsh teacher, the reader

is immediately on his side, which further re-establishes Livia as the antagonist. This is

escalated even more when Livia and Livilla basically frame Postumus for attempted rape,

which later in the book proves to be a false accusation.

When we look at the sources, the Roman historians do not view Postumus as positive

as Graves paints him to be. Suetonius shortly mentions Postumus in his Lives of Roman

26 Caesars, where he says that Augustus "discarded Agrippa [Postumus] for his base disposition and unruly temper". Similarly, Velleius Paterculus describe him as violent character, whose expulsion can be ascribed only to his own terrible behaviour:

About this time Agrippa [Postumus], who had been adopted by his natural grandfather

on the same day as Tiberius, and had already, two years before, begun to reveal his

true character, alienated from himself the affection of his father and

grandfather, falling into reckless ways by a strange depravity of mind and disposition;

and soon, as his vices increased daily, he met the end which his madness deserved {An

Abridgment of the History of Rome 194)

But just as with the other accusations against Livia, Graves in fact does have some kind of basis for his claim, this time in the writings of Tacitus and Cassius Dio. While Dio only mentions Postumus's dislike for Livia and Augustus {Rome History 476), Tacitus (as expected regarding his opinion on Livia and the Julio-Claudian dynasty) is much more direct and dismissive in his accusations: "For Livia had by this time obtained such a complete hold over the aged Emperor that she prevailed upon him to banish to the island of Planasia his only grandson, Agrippa Postumus" {Annals 4). Even though Tacitus does not offer any plausible evidence or details of such allegation, it could be regarded as a good enough basis for the subplot in Graves's novel, except for the fact that Graves does not use the source in its original state. What Tacitus describe as a relatively direct action by Livia, is transformed into a subversive, dishonest conspiracy against Postumus, which further emphasises the negative depiction of Livia and Livilla, and also exploits the stereotype of women being insidious and cunning.

But even though Graves, or rather Claudius, describes Livia as morally diseased character, there is one occasion in the novel where he in fact admits that Livia is an exceptionally great politician and ruler:

27 All the appointments which [Tiberius] made to Consulships or provincial

governorships were really [Livia's]: and they were sensible ones, the men being

chosen for merit; not for family influence or because they had flattered her or done her

some private service. For I must make it plain, if I have not already done so, that

however criminal the means used by Livia to win the direction of affairs for herself,

first through Augustus and then through Tiberius, she was an exceptionally able and

just ruler; and it was only when she ceased to direct the system she had built up that it

went wrong (192)

The conclusion is quite clear - while Graves is willing to admit that Livia was very efficient and just in her politics, it was unthinkable for him to admit that Livia, a woman in men's world, was honest in her means. Graves's Livia used every wicked trick known to the womankind in order to achieve her own personal interest, even though her motivations are rather vague. While Graves acknowledges that Livia was a good politician and even admits that she actually had higher good in her mind, that she had some kind of a visionary plan in which she transformed Rome into the eternal city (284), this motivation is drown in Livia's characterisation as a selfish, ruthless manipulator. It is especially obvious in contrast with the male characters, who are often depicted as honourable men with noble intentions, just a little bit clumsy in their action. This is especially clear in the case of Livia's counterpart, emperor

Augustus, who is depicted as her complete opposite. While he is written as a good, warm• hearted man who sometimes does bad things with good intentions, she is described as a spiteful woman who did few good things with evil intentions.

3.2 Julia the Elder

Julia the Elder was Livia's first stepchild - at the exact day she was born, her father

August divorced her mother Scribonia in order to marry Livia (Freisenbruch 26). As the

28 custom at the time required, Julia was taken away from her mother and her upbringing was placed solely in the hands of her father and stepmother. Julia was Augustus's only

(legitimate) biological child and therefore it is natural that she plays an important role in

Graves's novel. But even though he quite extensively relies on the negative rumours about

Julia's adultery and extreme sexual lust in her portrayal, the main purpose of the character is to exaggerate Livia's role as an evil stepmother, which results into the stereotypical depiction of Julia as a helpless victim of Livia's machination and her own promiscuity.

Unsurprisingly, Julia's appearance in the novel is always closely tied to Livia. As expected, Graves describes Livia as a harsh stepmother who insists on a very traditional upbringing without any joy or fun. At times, Julia's life almost resembles the famous fairy tale Cinderella, the story of an evil stepmother jealous of her stepdaughter's beauty:

She led a very weary life. She had a regular daily task of wool to card and spin, and

cloth to weave, and needlework to do, and was made to rise from her bed at dawn ...

And because her stepmother believed in a liberal education for girls, she was set,

among other things, to learn the whole of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey by heart. Julia

had also to keep a detailed diary, for Livia's benefit ... She was allowed no friendship

with men, though her beauty was much toasted. Livia ... was jealous of Julia's good

looks and Augustus's affection for her (22-23)

While Graves's description of Julia's childhood is based on historical sources, he certainly takes his liberties with shifting the blame solely on Livia. Even though Suetonius writes about Julia's upbringing in detail, Livia is not mentioned, only Augustus: "In bringing up his daughter ... he even had [her] taught spinning and weaving, and he forbade [her] to say or do anything except openly and such as might be recorded in the household diary. He was most strict in keeping [her] from meeting strangers" (Lives of Caesars 103). From the short except, it is evident that Graves copied Suetonius almost word for word, only replacing

29 Augustus's name with Livia's. Naturally, it is possible that Suetonius simply ascribed Livia's

merits to Augustus, which would not be anything atypical for a Roman historian, as they

seldom mention women in their writing. But considering Graves did not have anything to

base his claims about Livia on, it is still clear that he intentionally uses the clean slate to

create tension between Livia and Julia to emphasize the stereotypical relationship of strict, jealous stepmother and her helpless, innocent stepdaughter.

After the short chapter about her dreary childhood, Julia reappears later in the novel,

this time in relation to her marriage to Agrippa and later Tiberius. While Graves does not go

into much detail in describing Julia's marriage to Agrippa, only mentioning its hastiness and

the children that were born from this union, he uses her marriage to Tiberius as a sort of

turning point for both characters. He emphasizes Tiberius's reluctance to marry Julia,

stemming from his undying love for Vipsania Agrippa, the woman he was forced to divorce,

and claims that Julia "made things easy for Livia by falling in love with [Tiberius]" (36). Both

of these claims are based on Suetonius's Lives of Twelve Caesars:

And when [Tiberius] had begotten of her a son named Drusus, he was forced to put

her away, although he loved her still and knew her to be again with child, in order to

wed Julia, the daughter of Augustus; this he did, not without much grief and

heartbreak, for not only did he still desire Agrippina, but he also disliked the

demeanour of Julia, who had exhibited her fancy and disposition for him while she

was the wife of a former husband, and who, it was generally thought, was a woman of

free and inconstant character" (138)

It is evident that Graves's description of the relationship corresponds accurately with

Suetonius, while it slightly differs from Tacitus, who claims that Julia "treated [Tiberius] as

beneath her" {Annals 41) and who completely contradicts Suetonius by speaking of Julia's

"feeling of disrespect and hatred toward her new husband" (41). While Graves usually heavily

30 relies on Tacitus, he intentionally chooses to follow Suetonius's version of the story this time, since it offers much bigger opportunities to further emphasize the evilness of Livia as a stepmother and depict Julia as an innocent woman who simply loved the wrong man. But after Graves gets to the point of the final crisis of their marriage, his version suddenly deviates even from Suetonius. While Suetonius only briefly mentions Julia's "adulteries"

(141) and "excesses of lewdness and dishonesty" (103), Graves finalizes his story of Livia's involvement in her stepdaughter downfall:

Julia was ... naturally a decent, good-hearted woman ... She was imprudent enough to

approach Livia ... and ask her advice. Livia gave her a love-philtre ... saying it would

make her irresistible to her husband [Tiberius] ... What Livia very cruelly gave her

was a distillation of the crushed bodies of certain little green flies, from Spain, which

stimulated her sexual appetite that she became like a demented woman ... She was

forced by the action of the drug ... to satisfy her sexual cravings by adulterous

intercourse" (67)

At this point, Graves's intentions with the character are immensely different from both sources. While it is evident that Julia's affairs were clearly intentional, Graves fabricates the story of Livia's involvement, by which he completely strips Julia of her autonomy and responsibility for her action. On top of that, Graves tries to frame Julia's scandal as a somewhat private matter, caused by Livia and dealt with within the family. In reality, the scandal was very public, and many important men were executed, which points to a political motivation on Augustus's side.

In conclusion, Graves certainly takes his liberties in transforming the character of Julia into an innocent victim, framed by her evil stepmother Livia, and his interpretation seems extremely illogical. Not only Livia did not have a strong enough reason to strive for Julia's downfall, as it would only harm the reputation of her own son Tiberius, but all Roman

31 historians more or less agree that Julia was a headstrong and clever woman, who would not be so easily deceived. Moreover, the sole idea that the whole scandal was caused by an aphrodisiac given to her by Livia is rather improbable explanation, considering Julia's role in

Augustus's agenda of the moral revival of Rome.

Much more realistic explanation is that Livia was simply not involved, and Julia, forced into political marriages from a very young age, and at the same time presented as the face of her father's moral reforms, decided to consciously defy the expectations imposed on her. As De La Bedoyere summarizes: "For some people, especially women, being contained to that extent and being denied any personal autonomy left no choice other than mute compliance or frustrated rebelliousness. After Agrippa's death Julia chose the latter" (Domina

101).

3.3 Livilla

Claudia Livia Julia, the granddaughter of Livia and Claudius's older sister, is from the very beginning depicted as a rotten character. Since there is not much information about her alleged evilness during her childhood, and even the allegations about her later deeds seem to be far from the truth, Graves's stereotypical depiction was probably inspired by her nickname,

Livilla, which means little Livia. And Livilla in I, Claudius truly lives up to that name, as she is a mirror image of her wicked grandmother, only with less noble goals.

The reader first encounters Livilla in chapter five, when Claudius describes his rather miserable childhood. It is soon established that Livilla, unlike Claudius's other sibling

Germanicus, was one of the main sources of his misery, as she treated him with great cruelty and often mocked him. Graves immediately recalls the old saying about good and bad apples that was already mentioned in relation to Livia at the very beginning of the novel: "... Livilla,

32 a beautiful girl, but cruel, vain and ambitious - in a word a typical Claudian of the bad variety" (48).

Since historical sources do not offer much information regarding her childhood,

Graves's depiction of young Livilla is almost certainly pure fabulation, with the sole purpose of introducing Livilla as the antagonist. Tacitus only mentions that "in her early days she was not endowed with physical charms, but subsequently she became surpassingly beautiful"

(Annals 180), and Suetonius references Livilla despising the thought of Claudius becoming the emperor: "His sister Livilla, upon hearing that he was about to be made emperor, openly and in a loud voice expressed her indignation that the Roman people should experience a fate so hard" (Lives of Twelve Caesars 226). Graves actually uses the exact same exclamation in the chapter about Claudius's childhood, but this single sentence uttered by Livilla is quite neutral in its nature, considering that Claudius was generally believed to be a fool, and therefore it can hardly be used as a proof of her corrupted character. Regarding her status within the family, Livilla is also briefly mentioned in The Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone

Patre, decree from the year of Germanicus's death, which offers rather positive picture of her personality:

Livia [Livilla], sister of Germanicus Caesar, of whom both her grandmother [Livia

Drusilla] and her father-in-law and at the same time paternal uncle [Tiberius], our

princeps, had a most favourable opinion, persons whose opinions, even if she did not

belong to the house, she might deservedly vaunt, and much more so as a woman

bound by such close personal ties" (Potter, lines 136-145)

While Livilla is only a minor character during the first half of the novel, she gains in significance in the relation to Agrippa Postumus, who was already mentioned in the analysis of Livia as an evil stepmother. Graves creates the story of Postumus falling in love with

Livilla, even though she was previously married to his own brother Gaius, and later to Castor,

33 who will play an important role in Graves's version of her downfall. Graves continues to depict Livilla as a cruel, malicious woman. The reader immediately dislikes her, as she plays with Postumus's sincere feelings for her: "Now as to Postumus, poor fellow, he was in love with my sister Livilla ... Livilla was flattered by his passionate devotion. She flirted with him constantly but had no love for him" (90). The strong feeling of dislike is emphasized even more by Claudius's own resentment of his sister's behaviour, since Postumus is his boyhood friend and most importantly self-proclaimed protector, while Livilla often mocks him and only pretends to be nice to him in front of Postumus: "Whenever Livilla and I and he

[Postumus] were together she used to show pretended affection, which touched Postumus as much as it angered me" (90).

Even though the story of Postumus's blind love for Livilla is not based on any historical source, it lays ground for the framing of Postumus for her rape. Livia is the mind behind the conspiracy (132) and Livilla is the heartless executor, luring Postumus into the trap of her seduction (130). But while Livia's motivation for the fraudulent deed was already established (the succession of her son Tiberius), Livilla's benefits are not so clear. Postumus himself raises the important question: "And what does Livilla get? Did you [Livia] promise to poison her present husband and provide her with a handsomer one?" (132). Of course, this would fit well with the novel's general approach in depicting the female characters as promiscuous, but it does not make much sense in the context of the involvement of Castor

(Drusus Julius Caesar, Livilla's husband) in the whole scheme (129). Livilla could also be motivated by the prospects of protection by her grandmother Livia, but Graves did not convey the notion of Livilla as someone who acted in desperation and fear (whether of her "cruel and dissolute" (90) husband, or Livia herself) and resorted to that horrific deed. What more, she seems to almost enjoy Postumus's humiliation, as he recalls that he "saw [her] smiling" (132).

34 Either way, it should be noted that the whole story of the framing of Postumus is the result of Graves's imagination. While it might perfectly serve his intention to portray Livia and Livilla in a very negative light, it is not based on any ancient text, as has already been said in Livia's analysis. The sources agree only on Postumus's expulsion itself, but the reasons for it are described very vaguely (usually related to Postumus's savage nature). None of the ancient historians mentions the attempted rape, let alone Livilla or her involvement in it.

Tacitus even directly denies the mere existence of such an incident: "Agrippa Postumus, who, in spite of his utter lack of refinement and of his stupid ferocity, inspired by the possession of mere physical strength, could not be convicted of any great offence" (Annals 4). Graves used

Tacitus as a basis for his claim that Livia was involved in Postumus's exile, but the very same text simultaneously contradicts the possibility of Livilla's participation, since Postumus attempting to rape his own family member would probably be considered a great offence.

On the other hand, the story of Livilla's downfall is partly based on history, or rather historical sources. Her affair with Sejanus, the Praetorian Prefect and one of the closest confidants of Livilla's uncle Tiberius (at the time the emperor), is rather well known and mentioned by many ancient authors, from Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dio to Josephus. Graves quite skillfully implemented the story into his novel, as he had already established the deceiving character of Livilla. Similarly to the story of Postumus's exile, where Livilla is a pawn manipulated by Livia, Sejanus takes advantage of Livilla's love for him and especially of her desire for power: "By this time Livilla was so much in love with him that he could count on her to betray Castor as she had once betrayed Postumus - somewhat he knew that story - and there had even be talk between them in which they had regretted that they were not Emperor and Empress, to do as they pleased" (248-249). This paragraph is followed by a scene that closely resembles the one with Postumus (129), with the only difference that

Castor, the original provocateur, suddenly finds himself in Postumus's place as the one being

35 provoked by Livilla and her lover. Livilla's role in both scenes remains unchanged, emphasizing her nature as a promiscuous deceiver who does not hesitate to turn against her original allies/lovers.

Graves emphasizes Livilla's aspiration to become another Livia, especially through the similarity between the sudden death of Livia's stepchildren and the way Castor dies. At first, Claudius only mentions that Castor suddenly fell ill and died. While Claudius claims that

"the symptoms were those of rapid consumptions" (252), the reader soon comes to the understanding that Castor was murdered by his wife Livilla. Claudius bases his claim on the presumption that Sejanus and Livilla want to become the rulers of Rome, which again recalls

Livia ruthlessly murdering her stepchildren:

Sejanus and Livilla had now to consider how to achieve their ambition of becoming

Emperor and Empress. Nero, Drusus, and Caligula stood in the way and would have to

be removed. Three seemed rather many to get rid of safely, but, as Livilla pointed out,

her grandmother had apparently managed to get rid of Gaius, Lucius, and Postumus

when she wanted to put Tiberius into power (253-4)

But unlike Livia's, Livilla's machinations are soon discovered, and she falls out of favor. Graves surprises the reader by identifying Livilla's own mother, Antonia, as the reason for her downfall. Antonia discovers Livilla's letter to Sejanus, in which her daughter writes about her intention to marry Sejanus (even though he is supposed to marry her own daughter

Helen) and to get rid of Tiberius (305). Tiberius gives order to execute Sejanus and his children. Upon hearing about the death of her children, Apicata, Sejanus first wife, kills herself, but "first she wrote a letter to Tiberius telling him that Castor had been poisoned by

Livilla and that Livilla and Sejanus had intended to usurp the monarchy. She blamed Livilla for everything" (307). As a result, Livilla is to be executed, but not publicly - her own mother

Antonia locks her up in her room and starves her to death (308).

36 Unlike in the case of Livilla's involvement in Postumus's exile, there are many historical sources for this story. Graves's version seems to be based primarily on the writings of Josephus, Cassius Dio, and Tacitus, even though every one of them writes about a slightly different aspect of the whole story. While Josephus does not go into much detail, only mentioning Antonia's role in discovering Sejanus's treacherous plans, the other two authors give slightly more information. The incident between Sejanus and Drusus is mentioned by

Tacitus, who overall focuses mainly on Sejanus being the force behind Livilla's corruption:

For Drusus [Castor], who could not brook a rival and who was naturally somewhat

quick-tempered, during a casual quarrel with Sejanus had threatened him with

clenched fist, and when Sejanus prepared to defend himself, Drusus struck him in the

face. The readiest method of revenge appeared to be to address himself to his enemy's

wife, Livia [Livilla] (Annals 180)

This passage was obviously the basis for the scene with Castor mentioned above. It is clear that Graves did not have much information about Livilla's role in it, except the fact that she was somehow involved with Sejanus. Tacitus proceeds to write about Sejanus's desire for power: "he finally seduced her ... and he persuaded her to cherish hopes of becoming his wife and sharing his throne and incited her to murder her husband" (180). It could be argued that while Graves uses Tacitus's Annals as a basis for the general story, he kind of shifts the blame from Sejanus solely on Livilla (307). From the very beginning, the reader is persuaded to accept Livilla as a rotten character, and therefore does not hesitate to accept her as a murderer and traitor.

This version of Livilla highly contrasts with Roman History by Cassius Dio. He mentions Livilla as essentially the victim of Sejanus's manipulation: "Sejanus brought false accusation also against Drusus [Castor] through the medium of the latter's wife. For by maintaining illicit relations with the wives of nearly all the distinguished men, he learned

37 what their husbands were saying and doing; and he furthermore made them accessories to his crimes by promising to marry them" (195). Later, he repeats the same claim as Tacitus:

"[Apicata] withdrew and composed a statement about the death of Drusus, directed against

Livilla, his wife, who had been the cause of a quarrel between herself and her husband, resulting in their separation; then, after sending this document to Tiberius, she committed suicide" (218).

The many problems with Graves's version could be boiled down to one thing - he takes the very little these ancient authors offer and bends it in order to fit it into his own depiction of Livilla as an evil character. While her affair with Sejanus might be based on reality, her motivation for the murder of her own husband is very weak. Not only Graves claims that Livilla chose Castor as a husband herself (90), but she would also have higher prospects of becoming emperor's wife if she stayed with Castor, Tiberius's only son (Levick

161). Most modern historians agree that the poisoning is highly improbable, as it is only based on the letter written by Apacita, and the confession of tortured slaves:

It is well to inquire what proofs Apicata could have had of this crime, and how she

could have procured them even if the crime had been committed. Since the two

accomplices would have been obliged to hide their infamous deed from all, there was

no one from whom they would have concealed it more carefully than from Apicata.

We must further note that it is not probable that a cautious man, as Sejanus was in the

year 23, would have thought of committing so serious a crime as that of poisoning the

son of his protector. For what reason would he have done so? He did not then think of

succeeding Tiberius; by removing Drusus [Castor], he would merely have improved

the situation of the family of Germanicus, which at that time was already hostile to

him and with which he was preparing to struggle (Ferrero 207-8)

38 In conclusion, Graves's depiction of Livilla is based on very few sources that give very little information. He simply chooses the easiest path and depicts Livilla as a promiscuous version of Livia, which makes the character even more cartoonish, as she lacks the motivation of her grandmother. Instead of creating a believable, flawed character with strong motivation for her action, Graves comfortably slips into stereotypical depiction of

Livilla as a one-dimensional antagonist.

39 Conclusion

The aim of this thesis was to analyse the stereotypical depiction of female characters in Robert Graves's novel I, Claudius by comparing the novel with historical sources and by exploring the author's own background in the context of feminism, misogyny, and gender stereotypes typical for the time in which the novel was written. Main sources for the comparison were, among others, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Tacitus, Juvenal, and Livy, and also the texts of modern historians.

In the research of the author's background, it was established that Graves was familiar with the ideas of feminism and that his writing was strongly influenced by the women in his life, predominantly by his religious mother Amelia von Ranke, and his first wife Nancy Nicholson, and his lover Laura Riding, both of them outspoken feminists. On the other hand, he was also influenced by the social norms of his time, which were still very misogynistic in their core. This misogyny can be (to a certain extent) compared to the society of ancient Rome, since these two periods share many similarities, especially in the sense of social change and the longing for the morality of old times, mainly concerning the position of women in society, as is discussed in chapter two. This theory is further confirmed by the analysis of the authorial voice, since the story is written in first person voice and Graves himself admits that he does not have many sources for the personality and literary style of the narrator of the story, Claudius. Therefore, there is a great probability that Graves relies on his own imagination to create the persona of Claudius, which means that the character significantly reflects Graves's own personal opinions and worldview.

The comparison of the novel and Graves's sources in the literary analysis part of the thesis confirms that Graves intentionally picked and modified his sources to fit his narrative, which results in the stereotypical depiction of female characters. This can be partly ascribed to the misogyny of the ancient historians, whose writing is often heavily biased by their

40 prejudices against powerful women and also their dislike of certain imperial dynasties, and partly to Graves's own interpretation and sometimes even his uncritical acceptance of mere gossip as facts. As a result, the main three female characters come across as one-dimensional villains (or their helpless victim in the case of Julia the Elder), who do not have any deeper motivation for their action, only their hunger for power and their moral weakness. This portrayal strongly contrasts with the depiction male characters, who are often presented in a much better light than their historic counterparts, especially in the case of Augustus, Castor and Postumus.

In Graves's adaptation of history, Livia is depicted as an evil, murderous stepmother, whose sole motivation is the hunger for power, later rather unconvincingly justified as a fight for the good of the empire. Julia the Elder is portrayed as the victim of Livia's machinations and her own sexuality, which again relies on the stereotypical notion that she as a woman was not in charge of her own decisions. The last analysed character, Livilla, is simply portrayed as a promiscuous reflection of Livia, only with even less motivation for her deeds, since

Claudius does not justify her behaviour as in the case of Livia. Again, Graves relies on the stereotypical depiction of her as a treacherous lover with an abstract longing for power without any deeper, rational idea what to actually do with it.

41 Works Cited

Barrett, Anthony. Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome. Yale University Press, 2004.

Beddoe, D., Back to Home and Duty: Women between the Wars. Pandora, 1989.

Bontty, Monica. Ancient Rome: Facts and Fictions (Historical Facts and Fictions). ABC-

CLIO, 2020.

Burton, Philip. "The Values of a Classical Education: Satirical Elements in Robert Graves's

Claudius Novels." The Review of English Studies, vol. 46, no. 182, 1995, pp. 191—

218. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/518554.

Clark, Gillian. "Roman Women." Greece & Rome, vol. 28, no. 2, 1981, pp. 193-212. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/642866. Accessed 1 Mar. 2021.

De La Bedoyere, Guy. Domina: The Women Who Made Imperial Rome. Yale University

Press, 2018.

Dio, Cassius. Roman History. Harvard University Press, 1917.

Ferrero, Guglielmo. The Women of the Caesars. Pinnacle Press, 2017.

Firla, Ian. "Robert Graves Resources - Biography." Robert Graves Resources, 2008,

www.robertgraves.org/trust/index.php ?id=2.

Freisenbruch, Annelise. The First Ladies of Rome: The Women behind the Caesars. Vintage,

2011.

Friedan, Elizabeth, and Alan J. Clark. "The Word Woman and Other Related Writings."

Notthingam Trent University, 2005,

www4.ntu.ac.uk/laura_riding/books/38543gp.html.

Gail Braybon, Women Workers in the First World War. London: Routledge, 1989.

Graves, Robert. Claudius the God: And His Wife Messalina. Vintage, 1989.

Graves, Robert. Good-Bye to All That: An Autobiography. Vintage, 1958.

42 Graves, Robert, and . The Long Week-End: A Social History of Great Britain

1918-1939. Reissue, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001.

Grayzel, Susan. "Changing Lives: Gender Expectations and Roles during and after World

War One." The British Library, 2014, www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/changing-

lives-gender-expectations.

Hamilton, Iona. "Women Vote in a UK General Election for the First Time - December

1918." The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/politics/from-the-archive-

blog/2018/dec/14/women-vote-uk-general-election-first-time-1918.

Hammer, Joshua. "Robert Graves Found 'Perfect Tranquillity' in Majorca." The New York

Times, 27 Aug. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/07/05/travel/robert-graves-found-

perfect-tranquillity-in-majorca.html.

Harvey, Paul B. "TACITUS' LAST WORK: HISTORIOGRAPHY ASPECTS OF ROBERT

GRAVES' I, CLAUDIUS." The Classical Outlook, vol. 57, no. 1,1979, pp. 11-13. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/43934077. Accessed 24 Feb. 2021.

Holland, Jack. A Brief History of Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice (Brief Histories).

Robinson, 2019.

Juvenal, et al. The Satires. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Keegan, Peter M. "Women, Roman." The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, 2012.

Kleiner, Diana E. I, Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome. Yale Univ. Art Gallery, 1996.

Levick, Barbara. Tiberius the Politician (Roman Imperial Biographies). Routledge, 1999.

Livy. Rome's Mediterranean Empire, Books 41-45 and the Periochae: Rome's

Mediterranean Empire. Oxford University Press, 2010.

Mudd, Mary. I, Livia: The Counterfeit Criminal, the Story of a Much Maligned Woman.

Trafford Publishing, 2012.

43 Paterculus, Velleius. An Abridgment Of The History Of Rome. Kessinger Publishing, LLC,

2010.

Potter, D. S., and Cynthia Damon. "The 'Senatus Consultum De Cn. Pisone Patre.'" The

American Journal of Philology, vol. 120, no. 1, 1999, pp. 13-42. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/1561709.

Putnam, Emily. The Lady. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1910.

Quinn, Tom. "The Female in Four Writers of the Great War: 'Remarque, Hemingway, Celine,

Graves.'" Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, vol. 99, no. 394, 2010, pp. 219—

233. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25746121.

Seymour, Miranda. Robert Graves: Life on the Edge. Henry Holt & Co., 195AD.

Shirley, Jason. "LGBT History Month 2019 Faces - Robert Graves." Library, 9 Sept. 2019,

blogs.canterbury.ac.uk/library/lgbt-history-month-2019-faces-robert-graves.

Suetonius. The Lives of Twelve Caesars. Argus Books, 1934.

Tacitus, Cornelius. Annals. MacMillan, 1906.

44 Summary

This thesis explores the stereotypical depiction of female characters in the historical novel I, Claudius by British author Robert von Ranke Graves. The aim is to demonstrate the stereotypical and often misogynist way in which he portrays women in his novel, especially in direct comparison with the texts of Roman historians and other historical sources. The first part of the thesis is dedicated to the author, Robert Graves, and explores his life, relationships with women and most importantly his approach to feminism in general. It also explores his education in the field of history of ancient Rome and the sources for this particular novel. The second part examines the historical background regarding the status of women, both at the time of the creation of the novel, and at the time the novel actually takes place. The third and the last part is the literary analysis of the novel. It is focused on the three most prominent female characters of the novel, Livia Drusilla, Julia the Elder, and Livilla. Graves's depiction is compared with the historical sources in order to examine to which extent Graves bases his portrayal on actual history, and therefore reveal the stereotypes to which he resorts in his portrayal of women.

45 Resumé

Tato bakalářská práce se zabývá tématikou stereotypního zobrazení ženských postav

v historickém románu britského spisovatele Roberta von Ranke Gravese. Cílem práce je

ukázat stereotypní a často misogynní způsob, jakým vyobrazuje ženy vystupující vjeho

románu, zejména ve srovnáním s texty dobových římských historiků a jinými historickými

prameny. Práce je rozdělena do tří samostatných částí. První část se věnuje samotnému

autorovi a zkoumá jeho život, vztahy s ženami a především jeho přístup k feminismu jako

takovému. Také se zabývá jeho vzděláním v oblasti dějin starověkého Říma a konkrétními

historickými prameny, na kterých svou knihu zakládá. Ve druhé části je zkoumáno historické

pozadí v kontextu společenského postavení žen, a to jak v době vzniku tohoto románu, tak

v době, kdy se příběh odehrává. Třetí a poslední část se zaměřuje na literární analýzu textu.

Soustředí se na tři nejvýraznější ženské postavy, Livii Drusillu, Julii starší a Livillu. Způsob, jakým je Graves vyobrazuje, je srovnán s historickými prameny ve snaze určit, do jaké míry

se Gravesovo zobrazení shoduje s historií, a ukázat tak stereotypy, ke kterým se ve svém

vyobrazení žen uchyluje.

46