Recently, I decided to crack open my old copy of I, CLAVDIVS and re-read a few parts of it, but quickly found myself engrossed in the story. Having attempted to write historical fiction myself, I can appreciate all the skill Graves needed to write the two books; not only is every historical detail in place, but the narrative is clearly well thought out, and each character comes with a fully human personality.

Graves manages to paint a beautiful picture of first century Rome, through the eyes of a brilliant, yet deeply flawed man who would become an unlikely leader for Europe's early superpower. From Livia's devicive scheeming to Caligula's mad vanity, each character is believable, and while Graves' word choice was clearly aimed at a contemporary audience (terms such as 'gown' replace 'toga', and 'gold pieces' replace 'denarii'), and can be a bit awkward to the modern ear, such complaints are trivial at most, and only rarely detract from one's overall enjoyment of the story.

While the writing style Graves employs in the novels is long-winded and bombastic, it is more a sign of his skill than folly as an author. Without doubt, Claudius himself would have droned on with his histories (how could one blame him, and moreover how could one interrupt the Emperor?), and Graves' use of a writing style similar to that of Claudius contributes even more to the work's autobiographical feel.

All in all, the novels were exceptional.


The television series was also intriguing, though I feel it did not portray the character of Claudius accurately, and often times I burst into laughter at Brian Blessed's fits of rage, specifically, 'Is there no man in this room who has not slept with my daughter!?'.

That said, it is still an enguaging drama, worthy of one's time, so long as they keep in mind that it is now decades old. In fact, I rather enjoy I, Claudius more than HBO's more recent Rome, as I feel I, Claudius did not capitalize on nudity and tasteless humor as much, and focused more on politics than lust and violence.