I, Claudius - An Analysis of Nero

Zaz, can you remove my double post? I couldn't see it last night and that's why it was done twice.

And that's an interesting comparison with The Godfather.

And yes, next is Agrippinilla. Then Britannicus, and finally Nero.

 

I'm pretty sure we haven't done Agrippilla...

 

No, we haven't. She sure is a piece of work, Agrippinilla.

That banquet scene, I forgot to mention it but Narcissus wasn't there for that either. And there was a whole commentary on familiarity that I left out for some reason, I'll do it tonight.

 

Narcissus & Pallas.

Zaz, your Mafia capo comparison is interesting, and I never really thought of it that way. But I have one small disagreement: we see Pallas making his moves because he's concerned for his own survival, but while you regard it as shrewdness, I consider it as just garden-variety corruption.

In the first full episode where we see how Claudius relies on his freedmen (Fool's Luck IIRC), P & N have a sidebar discussion after meeting with Claudius over the matter of building the new harbor at Ostia. Pallas is in no hurry for the harbor to be built--he has lots of money invested in the grain industry, and easier port access for the grain means more grain sold in the city, which would then depress the price of the grain and thus shrinking his value. Pallas makes it clear to Narcissus that he doesn't want the port built, and he's willing to give Claudius bogus cost-overrun projections to ensure that. Claudius has the port built anyway, but we've just seen how Pallas is already looking out for his own interests, placing them just ahead of the Empire's/Claudius's interests.

I consider this to be more of an issue of plain greed & corruption because, at this point, there's no direct threat to Claudius's reign. The public & Senate are cozying up to Claudius, and the assassination attempt by Silanus had yet to be made, so by this episode Pallas shouldn't have had to worry about any jockeying for favor in the event that Claudius would suddenly die or be killed. Narcissus obviously doesn't see it this way, and he's clearly loyal to Claudius through and through. Pallas just seems to me to be on the take, and he was willing to do whatever it took to keep his new wealth as a freedman, and therefore made stronger plays to maintain his own influence as Claudius got older and married 'Nilla.

Narcissus, on the other hand, appears to be a "model" freedman: relentlessly loyal to Claudius and normally supportive of Claudius's policies. I suppose he and Pallas are possibly supposed to represent the 'angel' & 'devil' on claudius's shoulders. Narcissus might be loyal to a fault though--Pullman suggests to the viewer that Narcissus could have blocked (or at least reduced) some of the threats that sprang on Claudius over the years, had he found the right circumstances. By the time Claudius decides to marry Agrippinilla, he finally has an outburst where he tells Claudius that he would have done more to protect Claudius, if only he knew all the details. But at the same time, Narcissus isn't perfect. He doesn't rat out Pallas when the harbor/grain issue threatens to become a scandal, he simply plays dumb. So I guess even though he's still fiercely loyal to Claudius, he doesn't want to cause a personal rift between himself and Pallas, as it becomes clear they rely on each other a great deal in their work as the emperor's secretaries. I suppose it's reasonable to assume that, after the Messalina debacle, Pallas saw the writing on the wall and figured he needed to watch out for himself, because he now knew Claudius was capable of making gigantic errors of judgment, so his eventual capo decision making seems more logical. Narcissus also knows that Claudius has poor judgment of women (both P & N obviously knew the dirty details of Claudius's prior marriages), but he seems reluctant to maneuver himself into a better political position while Claudius is still alive. This could be considered being naive, but I tend to think of it as more of that unflagging loyalty. His marriage pick for Claudius appears to bear this out.

This is why I love the marriage candidate argument during the dinner in the final episode (ever notice how some of the best scenes in this show always seem to involve dinner??). This is where I got the idea of P & N serving as the counterpoint 'angels' on Claudius's shoulder. Perhaps it's better to see them as representations of Claudius's own conscience, warring over what would be the easy answer to his marriage dilemma versus what would be the smart answer. The

 

You know, I remember that thing aboit the grain merchants and the overestimates for the new harbour at Ostia, but only from the novel. In the novel it's done by nameless freedmen. Pallas was simply appropriated to this role, and it seems....appropriate.

As for civil servants, it's not long after Claudius is off telly that the BBC put on the grandaddy of them all, Yes, Minister.

I'll get to Agrippinilla after the weekend, but there's something else I wanted to address. Does anyone else find it odd that Pallas and Narcissus sit with Claudius at meals? Not just private dinners but banquets? It's curious that they seem to be missing from the family dinner, though. I did speak to Jello about the relationship between freedmen and their former masters, and they were considered former clients. Pallas and Narcissus were citizens, as one of them held a praetorship, and Pallas' brother Felix was adopted by a senatorial family.

 

I think you're suggesting that Pallas is corrupt and Narcissus isn't, which frankly isn't very likely. A certain amount of peculation is expected, I think, and both P & N expect it from each other, though it is probable that Narcissus is *less* corrupt. They are both ex-slaves, for one thing, and money is power (and freedom). Pallas did miscalculate with Nilla (like this short form), but really what happened was he wasn't fast enough with the shifting political sands, and stuck with her too long. Also his wealth made him a target. But he did outlast Narcissus, if only notionally.

 

Fair enough.

What's ironic is that I was earlier intending to post exactly that: both are corrupt to an extent, but Narcissus somewhat 'less' corrupt than Pallas. I just got on a roll and ended up forgetting what was originally my main point.

 

Narcissus still knows what side his bread is buttered on, so to speak. I don't think we get to see his reaction to Messalina's contest with Scylla, only Pallas.

 

I'm definitely intrigued.

With the production team from ROME behind it, it should certainly be a much grittier, bloodier version. Wonder how they'll treat Caligula's orgy or Messalina's contest.


But I'm also curious as to how much of a budget they'll get & how many episodes this will produce. The 1976 BBC team took 13 eps (10 for the first book, 3 for the second book).

 

The thing is, no matter how well it's done the series is going to be compared forever to the BBC series, which (as evidenced by this thread alone) still lasts the course of time.

And part of what makes the series so great is it's subtle humour, which was in Graves' novels and was carried into the television series. No offence to American television, but you guys do not do subtle humour as nearly as well as they do in the UK. At least, I have yet to see a single good case of it in either film or television. M*A*S*H comes close at times, but there's still a fair amount of slapstick there too. Aaron Sorkin does it quite well, but ancient Rome isn't really his thing.

I've only little a little bit of Rome, the series, but I have heard quite a bit about it. I'll have to borrow the DVDs when I can.

 

Who would play Livia?

Come to think of it, Angelina Jolie wouldn't be bad...Ignore that!

 

Re: Livia. I'm still voting Keira Knightley.

 

Augustus?

 

Hot news flash: Graves based Livia *and* Messalina on his lover, a woman named Laura Riding.

Yikes.

 

Okay, now onto a very bad apple...

Julia Augusta Agrippina - Agrippinilla

...and I must say at once that this Agrippinilla turned out one of the very worst of the Claudians-in fact, I may say that she shows signs of outdoing all her ancestors and ancestresses in arrogance and vice... - Claudius in Graves' novel
I married you for your head, my dear! - Claudius

History vs Fiction

Agrippina the Younger, or Agrippinilla as she is called by Graves, was the daughter of Augustus' granddaughter Agrippina and Claudius' brother Germanicus. She had three older brothers, Nero, Drusus and Caligula as well as two younger sisters Drusilla and Livilla whom Graves calls Lesbia (because she was born on the island of Lesbos). She was first married to Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, who is her second cousin through his mother, Antoia Major who is the sister of her grandmother Antonia. They had one son, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, the later emperor Nero. She was also Messalina's aunt by marriage, as Messalina's mother Domitia was one of her husband's sisters, but the Julio-Claudian family tree gets more and more complicated as you go down the generations.

Agrippina married Gaius Sallustius Crispus Passienus after her return from exile, a marriage that was orchestrated by Claudius for some reason. When he died there were suspicions she had poisoned him.

Graves more or less follows Agrippinilla's life as is recorded in history, though the stories about incest may be seen as propganda as I have said earlier. Even though Agrippinilla is still very much in both the novels, her exile to the Pontine Islands by Caligula with her sister is shown. Pullman doesn't include any of this, Agrippinilla isn't even shown until the very last episode, which is odd as she could have been included in the Caligula scenes in the palace to set her up for later and perhaps a scene where she and Lesbia (never shown in the series) are exiled.

So really, the focus is on her marriage to Claudius which is seen as incestuous but really is it so different from the intermarriages within the family that I have described above? The only difference really is that Claudius is of the previous generation to her. Not that I am advocating incest, but things look a bit different when you put them in the right perspective.

Now, onto her marriage to Claudius. It is actually in history that she and Pallas were lovers, though Pullman elaborates on this in a way that Graves never does. Everything though, is said to have been to further the interests of her son Nero for him to become the next emperor at the expense of Claudius' natural children. She gets Claudius to adopt Nero, she gets Octavia and Nero to marry and gets Claudius to give Nero all sorts of honours. Graves and Pullman would have us believe that Claudius knew he was being duped by Agrippinilla and Pallas until the last minute when Britannicus protested about his father's plans for him. But I think there is reason to suspect that Claudius was being led on and was not wise to it, which led to his death at her hands.

In terms of character, Agrippinilla is reminiscent of Livia in many ways and nearly as clever if it were not for the fact that her ambitions centred around herself and her son (Livia's may have been the same, but she maintained lofty ideals until the end). But she's just as clever at plotting and removing people from her path as Livia was, and does not make the same mistakes as Messalina. However, she forgets one thing: the people you bring to power usually have little use for the people who get them there once they have attained it. It's not in the series or the novels, but it directly follows on with the character. Agrippinilla sensed that her star was fading once Nero became emperor and there was little that she could do about it, though she was surprising good at evading death.

I know I said the incest with Caligula was probably untrue, the same could be said for the incest between Agrippinilla and her son Nero. However, I think this was more of a power thing rather tha

 

It is rather unfortunate we don't see more of her, especially because there are several good scenes in the book. I remember her splitting at Claudius when Nero's born, and Caligula suggests that the baby be named for him. There was also her brick-like comment after she comes home from exile (where she has been working as a sponge diver); she says something like if somebody wants to kill me, they better not try drowning. (And of course, Nero *does* try that, but that's far in the future)

 

FTR, Nero gave up tried to make it look like an accident when he killed her and just sent soldiers to do it.

 

Cross Agrippina's manners with Livia's cunning, and what do you get? You get Agrippinilla.

I'm with you, KG. It would have been nice if we'd seen her just a little more, perhaps if she'd been shoe-horned into ep 12.

Forget Tiberius, it's 'Nilla who turns out to be Livia's true heir (heiress?). She covets power, and when she receives it, she doesn't disappoint. I like the fact that the make-up dept made the effort to have Barbara Young's 'Nilla show a strong resemblance to John Hurt's Caligula, a stronger resemblance between siblings than we've seen throughout the show. I get the impression that 'Nilla is what Caligula would have been during his reign, had he not had mental health issues. In fact, 'Nilla strikes me as being somewhat even more dangerous than Caligula was, for that very same reason. I've wondered if Caligula himself thought so, if he made a point of telling people she was the most corrupt woman in Rome. The TV show doesn't mention her banishment, but the book at least adds the element that she's got a tougher survivor instinct than the other members of the Imperial family, possibly equal to Claudius himself.

Speaking of equals, it's tempting to consider 'Nilla to be an equal to Livia. They're alike in many respects (intelligent, power-hungry, cunning, angling to get a son on the throne). But I'd still give Livia the edge in that showdown. 'Nilla displays some of that fire & attitude that Agrippina had, and isn't afraid to speak her mind. So you could say that she possesses that same passion that her mother does, but in this regard 'Nilla seems to to one-up her mother in that she's better at knowing when to turn off the intensity and turn up the charm. Livia doesn't tip her hand very much; her passion is very much kept under control and she doesn't lose her cool very often. 'Nilla's patience seems to be just a bit shorter, so I could see her getting the carpet yanked out from under her from time to time--which Claudius does several times during their marriage. Perhaps 'Nilla would have been more evenly matched with Sejanus instead. Just imagine that marriage.

Looking back, perhaps that is precisely Claudius's thinking: he's using 'Nilla maybe not so much as another "Livia" but as his own "Sejanus". Clever, cunning, relentless... and willing to work behind the emperor's back to get things done. My favorite scene is when Claudius informs her that he's intending to marry her, and they finish the scene with this exchange:

Agrippinilla: If you give me power, I intend to use it.
Claudius: Why on earth to you imagine I'm giving it to you?

Even though he can't predict every single thing she'll do, he knows her well enough to reasonably predict how she'll behave in a given circumstance. And of course he's even able to predict her words when she asks him to favor Nero in civic offices or marrying him to Claudius's daughter. 'Nilla gets annoyed that he does this, but this is where her mother's impertinence peeks through--in her harsh reaction, she forgets that Claudius has known her from infancy. Just as he knew Agrippina's personality, he thus knows 'Nilla's personality as well. So on a philosophical level it must be much easier for him to wield her as a "Sejanus", since she's much more rational, and predictable, than Caligula. But at the same time, he knows she's just toxic enough to alienate a lot of important people even while she collects allies.

At the end, 'Nilla does strongly resemble Livia in her reaction to reading Claudius's book and his personal opinion of her. Nero marvels over Claudius's mammoth efforts in writing the book(s), but 'Nilla stays focused on her goal of obtaining his will. (She finds the will a little too easily, but that was probably Claudius being one step ahead of her as usual and deliberately laying it where they'd find it.) Upon reading his less-than-flattering portrait of her, she doesn't scream, doesn't lash out, doesn't blink an eye. No big show of outrage. She's knows

 

That's an interesting proposal, Sejanus and Agrippinilla together. But what you forget is that in this series, the villains of the piece never, ever cross swords as they seem to know it's better not to do so. No jungle is big enough for two tigers. That's Livia, Sejanus, Caligula and lastly Agrippinilla.

 

Livia had a certain ethos which Agrippillina lacks. I can't quite describe it.

 

Livia seems to revel in the fact that she is evil and she just doesn't care. Not to say that Agrippinilla cares, she's just more driven than to care about anyone. She's far more predatory than Livia ever was, Livia tended to sit back arranging things and pick the exact right time to strike and strike hard.

 

Following on from Katana's comments about Nilla being 'predatory' - I think timing could very well be an issue. Claudius is already old, and Britannicus is the assumed heir; Nilla really needed to get a wriggle on if she was to plant Nero in as the preferred heir instead.

 

Fair point. Livia had been married to Augustus for several years and could afford at times to bide her time. Agrippinilla couldn't, hence why she is more ruthless.

And we all see Livia's ruthlessness when she poisons Augustus to save her own skin.

 

I meant that Livia didn't kill people for no reason. She points out in the book that she never bothered her female rivals, such as Octavia.