Like the average modern reader, I know about the history of Rome, but I don't know the history of Rome, if ya know what I mean...(Colin Wilson's section on the more...'colourful' Romans in his Criminal History of Mankind is probably the max of my deeper reading!)So, if those of you who have read/studied more deeply on the subject could comment on Graves' historical accuracy, I'd appreciate it. (As would others, I'm sure.) Thanks. "All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds." Loricat's Book NookCelebrating the Absurd

The only history I've read about this time frame is Michael Grant's very good, but out-of-print, book The Twelve Caesars. My strongest impression was that Caligula came across as far more reasonable and capable than his depiction in I, Claudius. Propaganda spread by his adversaries has dominated the popular impression of him. In contrast, Tiberius was presented more harshly by Grant.Also, very little is known about Livia, and Graves must have made up most of the narrative about her (though the family tree is completely accurate).

Funny you mention that book. My father has that very book next to his reading chair right now. I remember picking it up and thumbing through the pages for a few minutes yesterday. I guess I got my love for books from him.On a sidenote I once watched a porno called, "Caligula," so I'm interested in learning more about this person. Yes, it was damn good. Thanks for asking.

I saw the movie Caligula too...and in Graves' 'account' (I've finished it -- it's a quick devour...I'll go back and read it again, to cement the mulititudes of players in my mind -- maybe I'll make notes on a copy of the family tree!), Claudius tells pretty much the same stories, glossing over the sex. "All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds." Loricat's Book NookCelebrating the Absurd

Just based on my reading so far, I'd hazard a guess and say that Graves was fairly meticulous with his research. He doesn't strike me as the sort of guy who would go and make serious flaws. I'm sure the book will deviate from canonical accounts here and there, but those are probably decisions he made after a great deal of consideration. More than altered facts, if you're looking to flesh out your knowledge of Rome, it's probably more germaine to watch out for embellishment. There are enough gaps in history, I'm sure, to give a novelist like Graves plenty of room to tell a story that isn't necessarily there. And history is complex enough that there's plenty of room for honest mistakes. I'll bring up one possibility when I post about chapter I, although I think there's a plausible justification for Graves' decision. I should send it off to Stan Lee. Maybe I'll win a no prize.

Here's some stuff I came across when researching the book's accuracy.Wikipedia entry on I, Claudius accuracy (WARNING: lots of spoilers)Wikipedia entry about LiviaAmazon book review of book about Livia

The Uffizzi museum in Florence has a lot of Roman busts, and I got to see some of our priciple characters face to face, including Tiberius and Clau-Clau-Claudius. I'll hunt around for some jpg images later on. Claudius' was particularly interesting -- very large, squarish forehead, small mouth.

testing