#only to be horrifically deified when she succeeds

[shining-supernova]

"if she isn't bound and broken like the rest of us ..."

why is the saint electric called a saint if she is a god?

Because she was human, once.

[hurremsultanns]

Poison is Queen: What Made Livia such a Fantastic Villain in I Claudius (1976)

(TW: Mentions of sexual assault and incest)

The miniseries I Claudius (1976) took the historical figure of Livia and her portrayal in Roman histories (by authors such as Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio) and how Graves adapted that for a novel and then turned her into a charismatic, well written, entertaining and memorable soap opera villainess. She is one of the most memorable characters on the show due to how she is written and acted. Personally, she’s my favourite character on the show, even though I sympathise more with other characters. She was the smartest character on the show and someone who always achieved her goal, she embodies the show’s dark humour, and she straddles the line between a pure evil and a complex evil villain without losing character consistency. Overall, she is a well-rounded and well-written character

One of the most important reasons why she was such a villain was how intelligent and effective she was. The best example of this can be seen in how she killed Augustus in Episode 4 (Poison is Queen). In this the show takes for its inspiration an accusation that Cassius Dio made of Livia. According to this story, Augustus refused to eat any food that anyone else had prepared. Therefore, in order to poison him Livia painted the poison onto the figs on a tree that he would pick himself. Even though though this owes itself to historical sources written decades after the events they describe (and is apocryphal), it is an incredibly creative and clever method of killing someone. In addition to this, she clearly embodies patience and uses time to her advantage in order to get what she was. Not only can this be seen in the Prophetic Chickens speech in episode 1 (which is a brilliant introduction to her strategic insights and political awareness, as she could see how things were eventually going to turn out, gambled and patiently waited in order to see the results of her decisions take their course) how she waits for the right moment to kill people (such as Agrippa and Augustus), but Siân Phillips herself discusses it in her interview in I Claudius: A Television Epic. She may not achieve her goals quickly, but she succeeds in the end. Her strategy is the definition of playing the long game. And using her brilliant foresight and strategic political abilities, she accomplishes what she sets out to extremely well. She played a risky game, but ultimately for better or worse Tiberius did become emperor, the Republic never returned and she was eventually deified by Claudius. And even though there are implications that the corruption that the choices she makes brings risk destroying the empire and will bring about the fall of Rome, ultimately the final word on this is said at the end of the final episode (Old King Log) by the Sibyl to the dying Claudius. She says that there will be many emperors in the future and they “won’t all be a bad lot”. This, and Livia’s argument that keeping the Republic would have doomed Rome contribute to the possible argument that ultimately while what she did was unethical and immoral, in a sense Livia was right at the end of the day. It is certainly unclear whether or not she doomed Rome or saved it. There are obvious pitfalls of this, however. It is important to acknowledge imperialism, monarchy and dictatorship are deeply flawed political systems. Of course, because they are examples of absolute power, corruption and the abuse of power tend to be at their very core. And this also reinforces the misogyny of Graves’ original book because it shifts the blame from Augustus being responsible for the political decisions which he took that allowed him to set himself up as the answer to the crisis of the late Republic and the slow accumulation of more absolute power in the hands of individual strongmen. Although, these problems don’t in my opinion take away from the way in which Livia is set up to have far more political savvy than the men around her, as she is the character who sees the clearest how the winds of history are blowing. This makes her a compelling character because it makes her truly awesome: her methods are terrifying, but her intelligence and her effectiveness are impressive.

In addition to this, she embodies the link which the show makes between its most horrific moments and it’s funniest moments. This is contributed to by the employment of dry humour and dramatic irony in her dialogue. One of my favourite examples of this is when Marcellus telling her that cooking his food for him personally is a good thing for her to do and she replies that “Goodness has nothing to do with it.” This is a good example of how well the show used dramatic irony, especially in respect to Livia. While Marcellus thinks that she is simply doing something kind but smothering for him, both she and the audience understand that there is more to this (i.e. she’s going to poison him in order to free up Julia in order to marry Tiberius). Not only is this simultaneously a shocking moment (since as far as the audience is concerned she has practically admitted what she’s going to do, even though Marcellus is unaware of what she meant), but the fact that this is hidden behind what would otherwise appear to be a kind but empty platitude is both clever and hilarious. This is an important moment because it sets the bar for the dry wit, sarcasm and dramatic irony that often accompany Livia as a character, even in her most horrifying moments. Other examples of this include the “food poisoning” scene between Livia and Musa in the same episode after the death of Marcellus, the “don’t touch the figs” scene, and her brilliantly hilarious speech to the gladiators. Not only does this add to the characterisation of her intelligence, but it also adds to the entertainment quality of her as a character. As villainous and evil as she is, she is also genuinely entertaining and fun to watch, which makes her show version so enjoyable to watch and memorable in comparison with the version of her character in the book (This is a comment that other fans of the series, including Prof. Mary Beard herself, have made and I fully agree with it). By contrast, in the book, there is often very little ambiguity as to what Livia’s schemes and activities are, and there is very little dialogue. This means that one of the things that show!Livia is most memorable for, her one liners, were added in Pulman’s script, and they make for a far better character than book!Livia. Through the dramatic irony, we get a far better sense of her intelligence because the audience has to work out on our own what she has done before it is confirmed (which adds to the perception of her intelligence as we have to think it through for ourselves) and that and her humorous moments make her a far more enjoyable character than her book counterpart. Therefore the dramatic irony and humour that characterise Livia as a character make her a great villain because they make her more memorable than she otherwise could have been.

She goes between being a pure evil villain and a complex villain, although this is never made to feel contradictory as it is completely within her established character. She is perfectly willing to the lengths of murdering Augustus’ heirs and disappearing other people in order to get her way, but when she finds out how bad Tiberius has become and Caligula is, she calls their behaviour “disgusting” and refers to Caligula as a “monster”. Since their villainous actions are so different from what Livia does. She’s OK with herself murdering people in order to get what she wants, but she draws the line at incest, sexual harassment and assault. This also works well because it highlights her self-serving narrative: that she is doing everything for the good of Rome. Which is even emphasised by her outrage at finding out what happened to Lollia. She does not want to admit her role in turning TIberius evil by separating him from Vipsania (forcing him to divorce her and marry Julia, the original Disaster Marriage) and Drusus (by murdering him when he was injured, the one thing she can’t admit to Claudius), his two anchors. In episode 1 when he is speaking to Drusus, Tiberius says that they are the only two people whom he loves and describes his brother as his “lifeline into the light”. Therefore, by murdering Drusus and also forcing Tiberius to divorce Vipsania, Livia has a role in turning him into the evil person he becomes later on, and her outrage could be interpreted as a way to avoid the consequences that her toxic behaviour has had. I am not saying that she is responsible for his actions (that’s all on him), but she is responsible for turning him into the type of person who would do them, and that this is a fact that she conveniently ignores as a part of her self-serving narrative. While in some ways she is willing to revel  in evil, there are things that she cannot bring herself to admit to. So she both has the motivations of a complex villain and the entertainment value of a pure evil villain, and this works flawlessly.

What makes Livia such a great villain is that she is such a well-rounded and intelligent character.This can be seen in the characterisation of her intelligence, the humour that accompanies her and the way in which her depth as a character does not diminish her evil. She is a more interesting, entertaining and enjoyable character than her counterpart in Graves’ original book at least in part due to these reasons.