I wonder if it was Robert Graves's massively-influential two-part pseudo-autobiographical novel I, Claudius (or "Clavdivs" as it was written on the cover of the version I read - and which my Granny noticed and read-out phonetically, leading to a continuing family pronunciation-trope) and Claudius the God; that popularized the 4-Dimensional Chess understanding of political leaders - so evident among the self-styled "Right" in the US today.
Before Graves's books, it seems that Claudius was regarded as a mediocre and weak Emperor, who came in-between the two ultra-evil (hence much more interesting) Emperors: Caligula and Nero.
Of course, Claudius Caesar was also the Emperor who successfully conquered England - so for us there is an inclination to assume that there "must have" been something more positive to him; since he succeeded in beating "us" where the great Julius had failed (twice).
At any rate; Graves decided to depict Claudius as a good, clever, and sympathetic man; whose underlying desire and purpose - unspoken, kept in his secret heart - was to abolish the position of Emperor and restore the Roman Republic...
Who nonetheless, by a series of accidents, ended-up becoming the Emperor instead!
This assumption I found convincing in I, Claudius, which covers the time before he became Emperor; but becomes increasingly untenable as we progress through all the corruptions and evils of Claudius's actual reign, and his final decision to allow himself to be poisoned, and Nero to become his successor.
Yet Graves sticks with the idea that Claudius always aimed at good; and manages this by attributing all sorts of 4-D chess attributes. Including the final desperate master-stroke of ensuring that Claudius himself would be followed by the worst possible successor - in the (as it turned-out, mistaken) belief that after Nero, the situation of Rome would become so very-bad that (surely?) the Republic would be restored.
This did not convince me at the time I first read C the G (aged 14) - and it does not convince me now.
Nor am I convinced by attempts to depict current (or recent) mainstream political figures - who advocate-promote-and-do, many or most of the usual mainstream-evil things; to depict such characters as being - in their secret hearts - agents for good...
Biding their time, taking the long view; (like Saruman) regretting that the ultimate end unfortunately entails implementing malignant means, here-and-now...
But with a Master Plan to ensure the restoration of common sense and decency in public life; by means of a covert strategy far beyond the comprehension of us ordinary mortals - yet working behind-the-scenes, always and tirelessly, for our betterment.
I haven't read I, Claudius. The only Graves I have read, aside from the poetry, is his memoir Goodbye to All That.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, perhaps one reason this 4-D chess business is unconvincing is that denigrates or outright denies the reality of beings as free agents.
The notion that one being or a groups of beings, through the sheer power of will, can masterfully anticipate and, thereby, control the freedom and agency of other beings on a "grand-scheme scale" without the use of outright coercion, stretches the limits of believability, especially when the future comes into play.
Anticipating, predicting, or controlling a situation is relatively plausible if the situation involves few beings and little time. Once time and the number of beings involved expands, the likelihood of any 4-D chess strategy being successful diminishes greatly.
@Frank - But the 4-D chess perspective works well if what you are *really* trying to do is pursue short term selfish interests, at the cost of general destruction and suffering - it very effective at enabling that!
ReplyDeleteNo doubt. And you make that point very well in the post.
Delete"Anticipating, predicting, or controlling a situation is relatively plausible if the situation involves few beings and little time. Once time and the number of beings involved expands, the likelihood of any 4-D chess strategy being successful diminishes greatly"
ReplyDeleteI have thought the same thing. The idea of a master manipulator can be made to seem plausible in fiction, but in the real world, the number of possibilities is simply too large. What really happens is that manipulators are good at reacting to events, using coercion, and they also spend great effort in making people think the possibilities are more limited than they actually are.
The secret plan to restore the Republic was particularly implausible given Claudius’ career (or hobby) as a historian. You didn’t even need to be a historian to realize that once Augustus won the civil war, the Republic wasn’t coming back.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, he ruled competently for 13 years, and I’d certainly disagree that he was mediocre or weak.
@D - The conclusion of mediocrity and weakness came from Graves's novel (where he was increasingly passive, increasingly dominated by his nasty relatives, and by his depraved wife) - but the evaluation seems just by comparison with the ablest and most transformative Emperors such as, among the earlier Caesars, Julius and Augustus. Clearly Claudius wasn't in that class.
ReplyDeleteIn a ranking; Claudius and Tiberius would be middling - not sure of the order, Caligula and Nero (obviously) both very bad.