LIVIA THE POISONER: GENESIS
OF AN HISTORICAL MYTH
CALHOON, C.
1994
-LJ'lVl'l Information Service
This is an authorized facsimile, made from the microfilm
master copy of the original dissertation or masters thesis
published by UMI.
The bibliographic information for this thesis is contained in
UMI's Dissertation Abstracts database, the only central
source for accessing almost every doctoral dissertation
accepted in North America since 1861.
UMIDissertationServices
A Bell & Howell Company
300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
1-800-521-0600 313-761-4700
Printed in 1994 by xerographic process
on acid-free paper
4209
Order Number 9415538
Livia the poisoner: Genesis of an historical myth
Calhoon, Cristina Gardino, Ph.D.
University of California, Irvine, 1994
Copyright ?1994 by Calhoon, Cristina Gardino. All rights reserved.
UMI
300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor. MI 48106
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper lefthyphenminushand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" chi 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
UMI
University Microfilms international
A Ben & Howeii information Company
300 Norm Zeeo Road Ann Arbor Ml 48106hyphenminus1346 USA
313 761hyphenminus4700 800 521hyphenminus0600
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
IRVINE
Livia the Poisoner: Genesis of an Historical Myth
DISSERTATION
submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in Classics
by
Cristina G. Calhoon
Dissertation Committee:
Professor Richard I. Frank, Chair
Professor Susan Treggiari
Professor Luci Berkowitz
Professor Patrick Sinclair
Professor Dickson Bruce
1994
by Cristina G. Calhoon
All rights reserved.
The dissertation of Cristina G. Calhoon is approved,
and is acceptable in quality and form
for publication of microfilm:
Shv\ X-
Committee Chair
University of California, Irvine
1993
11
To
Ken and Martha
For their support, love and patience
all these years
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS V
CURRICULUM VITAE VI
ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION vii
INTRODUCTION 1
PART 1
CHAPTER 1: The Roman Matron and the Eastern Queen 8
CHAPTER 2: The Mother of the Country 52
CHAPTER 3: The Queen Mother 118
CHAPTER 4: The Augusta 153
PART 2
CHAPTER 5: The Matron and the Tyrant 228
CHAPTER 6: Women and Subversion in Roman
Historiography 271
CHAPTER 7: Livia's Legend: The Poisoning Novercg 312
BIBLIOGRAPHY 339
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My deepest appreciation and sincerest thanks to the members
of my committee for their abiding trust in my ability to
bring this project to completion.
Special thanks to my husband, whose technical expertise,
patience and sympathy allowed me finally to see this day,
and thanks to all my friends, who shared the pain and sup-
plied inspiration in ways unknown to them.
CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Name: Cristina G. Calhoon
Address: 140 West 16th Ave., Eugene, OR 97401
Telephone: (503) 683-5188
Education
Ph.D. (Classics) Univ. of California, Irvine March 1994
M.A. (Classics) Univ. of California, Irvine June 1983
Laurea (English/German) Univ. of Torino, Italy July 1978
Research and Teaching Interests: Latin and Greek language,
literature and history, Mythology, Women's Studies, Rela-
tions between Romans and other cultures.
Dissertation: "Livia the Poisoner: Genesis of an Historical
Myth," directed by Prof. Richard I. Frank
This research uses archeological and numismatical evi-
dence to re-evaluate the ambiguous portrayal by certain
Roman historians of Livia as gravis in rem publicam
mater f gravis domui Caesarum noverca. Special attention
is given to the role of literary stereotypes, both posi-
tive and negative, of politically ambitious women, as
well as to the narrative patterns of episodes in Tacitus'
Annales r Livy's history, and the work of Dio Cassius.
Teaching Experience:
As Teaching Assistant in Classics (Univ. of Calif., Irvine):
Greek and Latin Roots in English (Spring 1982)
Greek and Latin Literature in Translation (Fall 1982)
Intermediate Italian (Winter, Spring 1983)
Beginning Latin (1983-84)
Humanities Core Course (1984-85)
As Instructor in Italian (University of Oregon):
Beginning, Intermediate and Intensive Italian (1988-93)
Papers: "Cain and Orestes, Crime and Punishment," CAAS Fall
Meeting 1992, Poughkeepsie
"Livia and the Altars to Ceres Mater and Ops
Augusta," University of Oregon, Spring 1993
"Lucretia, Savior and Scapegoat," PAPC Meeting
1993, Seattle, November 1993
vi
ABSTRACT
Livia the Poisoner: Genesis of an Historical Myth
by
Cristina G- Calhoon
Doctor of Philosophy in Classics
University of California, Irvine, 1994
Professor Richard I. Frank, Chair
This dissertation examines the ambiguity with which
Roman literary tradition has invested the figure of Livia,
portrayed both as the embodiment of the virtues of the
ancient Roman matron and as the prototype of the
unscrupulous and power-hungry female. The portrayal by
certain Roman historians (Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius
and Velleius) of Livia as gravis %n rem publicam mater,
qravis domui Caesarum noverca. is re-evaluated in light of
archeological and numismatical evidence. Special attention
is given to the role of literary stereotypes, both positive
and negative, of politically ambitious women, as well as to
the narrative patterns of episodes in Tacitus' Annales,
Livy's history, and the work of Dio Cassius.
The material of this study is divided into two parts.
The first examines the historical Livia in the context of
the evolution of the Augustan principate, with particular
attention to the creation of her public role through the
conferment of special honors and the emergence of her cult.
vii
Part Two investigates the image of Livia presented by
historiographers. A preliminary discussion of the
ideological function of the "ideal" matron, and of that of
her opposite, the woman who seeks public recognition for her
political capacities, provide the background necessary to
examine the different elements of Livia's literary image.
The figure of Lucretia is examined vis-a-vis her opposites,
Rome's Etruscan queens, who present striking similarities to
Tacitus' Livia and to her granddaughter Agrippina, mother of
Nero. Also discussed are the figures of brilliant and
energetic women who rejected traditional tenets of conduct
and were perceived as a threat to Rome's political order.
These observations are combined in the final chapter, where
the figure of Livia is examined through a discussion of fig-
ures (e.g. the step-mother, the witch), certain of whose
characteristics converge in the literary portrayal of "Livia
the poisoner."
Vlll
Introduction
The figure of Livia preserved by Roman literary
tradition is fraught with ambiguity: on the one hand, she
embodies the virtues that made the women of ancient Rome
exemplary, to the point that even her most virulent detrac-
tors could not help acknowledging her chastity, prudence,
wisdom, and loyalty to her husband;1 on the other, she is
often portrayed as calculating, unscrupulous and power-
thirsty, seeking relentlessly to obtain absolute power by
making her son, Tiberius, the sole ruler of Rome.a
Much in these characteri2ations betrays the ideological
bent of their various authors so that, while it is indeed
possible that Livia was extremely ambitious (she was, after
all, a true-blue Roman aristocrat within a tradition
familiar with ambitious and strong-willed matrons), the
charge that she used intrigue and even assassination to
clear Tiberius' path to power has never been substantiated.
Tacitus and Dio alone, among the ancient sources, report
Livia's alleged crimes; these stories probably had their
origin in the circle of Agrippina the Elder and may have
been perpetuated via the memoirs of her daughter, Agrippina
the Younger.1 Livia also shared Tiberius' unpopularity;
virulent personal attacks against female relatives of
political rivals had been a feature of political rhetoric in
Republican times, but the tradition had not died with the
Republic. As Tiberius' regime grew increasingly oppressive,
1
2
some regarded Livia as the only restraining influence on her
son's worst tendencies, while others made her ultimately
responsible for his tyranny.
The ambivalence that characterizes Livia's literary
portrayal mirrors a complex set of relations between the
public and private sphere, as well as those between family
and community, male and female. Although Roman women were
excluded from public life and expected to devote their lives
to caring for their children and running the household, they
were nevertheless essential to the continuation of Rome's
patriarchal social and political structure. Chastity was
for a woman the equivalent of courage for a man, since both
guaranteed the survival of the family line and of the
state.4 Conversely, a woman's sexual promiscuity disrupted
the family and, metaphorically, the state. Women actively
involved in politics were perceived as having abandoned
their proper familial role to invade male territory, hence
their depiction as unnatural, immoral and depraved.5
Despite this polarization, aristocratic Roman women
exerted considerable political influence in socially accept-
able forms: as mothers of influential sons and as patrons
and benefactresses, modelled on the "super-mother role" of
the elite. This "First Lady" figure offered women a "com-
pensatory ideal" to strive for, but was not immune from
distrust or attacks if those who embodied it were thought to
wield real power. During the Principate, the wives of
3
"good" rulers won distinction as patrons of communities,
dispensers of food and charities to the lower classes,
particularly women and children. Livia was the first of
these "super mothers": she was exalted by Augustan propa-
ganda as a chaste spouse and mother, promoter of married
life and child-rearing.6
Yet in attempting a study of Livia's character and of
her impact on the history and tradition of Rome, it is
impossible to avoid reckoning with the body of tales, rumors
and anecdotes that followed her both during her lifetime and
through subsequent generations?stories which collectively
constitute the historical "myth" of Livia. This myth has
successfully resisted the erosion of time, and it bears
primary responsibility for the persistence of the image of
Livia the poisoner, "a harsh mother to the state, a harsh
stepmother to the house of the Caesars" (gravis in rent
publicam mater, gravis domui Caesarum noverca).7
The aim of this study is to show how historians and
moralists appropriated Livia's historical persona and molded
it into a prototype of a Roman "First Lady"?a figure that
combines a select few of her traits with those of some of
her successors, as well as of female tyrants from literary
tradition. Distrust of ambitious women merged with a hatred
of monarchy?regarded by senatorial historians as a form of
government unworthy of free men?and produced the Tacitean
Livia, poisoning stepmother of the dynasty.
4
The material of this study has been divided into two
parts: Part One (chapters One through Four) examines the
historical Livia in the context of the evolution of the
Augustan principate, with particular emphasis on the
creation of her public persona through the bestowal of
special honors and the emergence of her cult. Chapter One
deals with Livia's marriages and with the supporting role
she played with Octavia in Augustus' propaganda preceding
Actiura. Their public role as models of Roman womanhood in
contrast with Cleopatra's foreign vices was stressed by the
grant of inviolability (sacrosanctitas), religious
protection against physical and verbal offences similar to
that enjoyed by the tribunes of the people. Chapter Two
examines Livia's position in the period from 27 to 2 B.C., a
crucial time for the establishment of Augustus' regime.
Although valued by her husband as his most trusted
collaborator and honored on important monuments of the
regime, Livia had to share the spotlight with her
stepdaughter Julia, mother of Augustus' successors, while
coping with the personal and political crisis created by
Tiberius' departure for Rhodes. These years witness the
emergence of her cult in Rome in the guise of the cult of
her Juno, companion to Augustus' Genius. Chapter Three
examines the period from A.D. 4 to 14 with regard to Livia's
increasing importance as mother of Augustus' successor after
the deaths of Gaius and Lucius. Her iconographical
5
representation in these years stresses her association with
Ceres-Demeter, divine manifestation of the idea of bountiful
motherhood. This connection is undermined, however, by
rumors making her responsible for the deaths of Tiberius'
rivals and of Augustus himself. Chapter Four discusses
Livia's position as Augusta and her function in the Tiberian
principate. Also examined are her relations with Tiberius,
Germanicus and Agrippina, with a final assessment of her
career.
Part Two (chapters Five through Seven) deals with the
image of Livia presented by historiographers. For this
purpose it is necessary to examine first the ideological
function of the "ideal" matron and compare it with its
opposite, the woman who seeks public recognition of her
political capacities. In several instances this type of
woman departs from the stereoype of the immoral and
unnatural virago. However, even when her qualities of
intellectual brilliance, courage, determination and wifely
devotion are recognized, she is nonetheless perceived as a
threat to social stability and often thought to harbor
revolutionary designs or to fraternize with revolutionaries.
Chapter Five discusses the importance of female chastity as
a vital factor in the ideology of the Roman state,
particular attention being devoted to the emblematic figure
of Lucretia and to her opposites, the women of the
Tarquinian dynasty, who present striking similarities with
6
the literary figures of Livia and Agrippina the Younger.
Chapter Six examines the perception of women as a threat to
the Roman patriarchal state, working to subvert it by means
of an "alliance" with perverted and dispossessed men. The
ties between immorality and the use of poison as metaphors
for subversion are examined in the context of the
Bacchanalian scandal, the Catilinarian conspiracy and
murderous matrons. Chapter Seven applies the observations
made in the two preceding chapters to the myth of Livia the
poisoner through a discussion of related figures. The
ambivalent (that is, excessively ambitious) mother, the
step-mother and the witch are females exhibiting socially
and politically deviant behavior; elements of their
representation, combined with the stereotypes of moral
deviance examined in chapters Five and Six, converge in the
literary portrayal of Livia the poisoner.
Notes to Introduction
1. Positive assessments: Tac. Ann. 5.1; Dio 55.14hyphenminus22; Veil.
Pat. 2.75.2, 2.130.5; Sen. Cons. Ad Marciam 2hyphenminus4.4, De Clem.
1.9.6.
2. Negative assessments: Tac. Ann. 1.5, 1.6, 1.10; Dio
56.30.2, 56.31.1, 56.47.1, 57.3.6, 57.12.2hyphenminus4, 57.18.6.
3. G. A. Harrer, "Tacitus and Tiberius," AJP (1920), pp.
57hyphenminus68 on the tradition hostile to Tiberius; M. P.
Charlesworth, "Tiberius and the Death of Augustus," AJP
(1923), pp? 154hyphenminus55, and C. Questa, "La Morte di Augusto
secondo Cassio Dione," La Parola del Passato 54 (1959), pp.
41hyphenminus53, especially p. 52 n. 30 on Agrippina's hand in
perpetuating the rumors.
4. Livy 10.23.8 on the equivalence of women's chastity and
men's courage. Cf. also Tau. E. V. Pearce, "The Role of the
Wife as Custos in Ancient Rome," Eranos 72 (1974), pp. 16hyphenminus
33, R. Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana
1942), p. 277; S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford 1991),
pp. 206, 220, 243, 375 on lanificium and chastity.
5. Sail. B. C. 25.2hyphenminus4 on Sempronia; Dio 50.24hyphenminus28, Horace
Odes 1.37, Prop. 3.11 on Cleopatra; Cic. Pro Cae. 23.57 on
Clodia, Phil. 2.3 on Fulvia; Appian B.C. 4.32, Dio 49.10.4,
Veil. Pat. 2.74.3 on Fulvia; Livy 1.41, 1.46hyphenminus48 on Tullia.
6. S. Dixon, "The Enduring Theme: Domineering Dowagers and
Scheming Concubines," in Stereotypes of Women in Power, ed.
B. Garlick, S. Dixon and P. Allen (New York 1992), pp. 207hyphenminus
225, esp. pp. 212hyphenminus219.
7. Tac. Ann. 1.10.
Chapter One
The Roman Matron and the Eastern Queen
This chapter traces the beginnings of Livia's career,
examining briefly her patrician background, family relations
and first marriage during the troubled years of the Civil
War. As a member of the Drusi by paternal adoption and of
the Claudii by birth, Livia had ancestral ties with two of
the most powerful, eminent and controversial gentes of the
Roman nobility. As such she inherited a position in the old
ruling class of the aristocratic Republic. Her marriage to
the triumvir Octavian, leader of the "popular" party, was an
important step toward the final reunion of Roman society
which was achieved by her husband. During the years from 38
to 31 B.C. Livia made her first forays into the public
sphere, together with her sister-in-law Octavia, as the
embodiment of Roman womanhood vis-a-vis Cleopatra's
threatening femaleness. The grants of financial
independence and inviolability, conferred on the two women
by the Senate to enhance and protect their status as icons?
although couched in the traditional imagery of the tribunate
and of Vestal priesthood?were a bold innovation. They
constituted the legal foundation of Livia's subsequent
public role, from which her ultimate dignity as Augusta
would develop.
9
1. A Roman Patrician
Livia Drusilla was born on January 28, 58 B.C., the
daughter of Marcus Livius Drusus Claudianus and of Alfidia
of Fundi. On her father's side she belonged to two leading
families of the nobility, the patrician Claudii and the
plebeian Livii Drusi. Her mother, on the other hand, does
not seem to have belonged to a senatorial family,1
Although plebeian in origin, the Drusi were connected
with members of the gentes maiores through adoption and
marriage. They had distinguished themselves as patrons of
the Senate and had opposed Caius Gracchus' designs, while
some of the Claudii had supported his brother Tiberius, son-
in-law and political ally of Appius Claudius Pulcher, consul
in 143 B.C. This alliance seems to contradict the
stereotypical characterization of the Claudii as ultra-
conservatives chronically hostile to the commoners. The
myth of Claudian arrogance and hatred of commoners has been
recently questioned by T. P. Wiseman, who contends that
while the hostile portrait may have suited some members of
the Claudii, it was not representative of the whole gens.2
The reputation of the Claudian women was similarly
mixed. A Claudia earned the dubious distinction of being
the first woman tried for treason for casting aspersions on
the crowds at the games. Another, Claudia Quinta, was
instrumental in bringing the Phrygian Great Mother to Rome
in 204 B.C. and became an example of chastity. The memory
10
of her deed was kept alive by theatrical representations
during the festival of the Megalensia. Yet another, a
Vestal, helped her father to celebrate an unauthorized
triumph, riding in his chariot and protecting him by her
presence. Cicero mentions her action as an admirable exam-
ple of pietas toward her father, if not toward the state.3
These contradictory traditions concerning the Claudii,
male and female, combined with moralistic and misogynistic
rhetorical topoi, were to contribute to the historical myths
concerning Livia and Tiberius that emerged subsequently.
2. Livia/s First Marriage
In 43 B.C. Livia was given in marriage to Tiberius
Claudius Nero, a relative. The bridegroom was older than
she and had already established himself as a politician. He
was on friendly terms with Cicero, who would have accepted
him as a son-in-law had not Tullia already been betrothed to
Dolabella. Despite the fact that most of Tiberius Nero's
career had been under Caesar's auspices, he sided with the
liberators at Caesar's death, proposing special honors for
the assassins.*
In 43 he married, apparently for the first and only
time, the young Livia. She was his equal in rank, and her
family was similarly linked to the liberators. As a
follower of the senatorial party, Livia's father had been
proscribed in 43 and had joined the republican army in
Greece, where he committed suicide after the defeat at
11
Philippi. In the same year (42 B.C.) young Livia
experienced the death of her father and the birth of her
first son, Tiberius.s
Livia's husband had been nominated praetor the year
before, but at the expiration of his term he refused to give
up the charge and joined Antony's side in the Perusine War,
stirred up by Fulvia on behalf of her absent husband. At
the fall of Perusia, Nero escaped to Campania, where he
tried unsuccessfully to provoke a rebellion among peasants
and slaves. Failing that, he fled with wife and child first
to Sicily, then to Greece to join Antony's forces. Sparta
offered the little family rest and shelter, because the
Spartans were traditionally clients of the Claudii and were
believed to be the ancestors of the Sabine people, from whom
the Claudii originated.6
Not much is known of Livia up to this point; the
accounts that Velleius, Dio and Suetonius give of the flight
unanimously stress her strength and courage in enduring
trials and tribulations. When the family finally returned
to Rome in 39 B.C., Livia was expecting her second child.
Shortly thereafter, she met Octavian, who fell in love with
her and persuaded her husband to divorce her. Livia's
feelings on this event are an enigma; nothing is known about
her relations with Tiberius Nero, except that she did her
duty as a true Roman wife, bearing him two children and
following him loyally into exile. It is dubious whether it
12
was at all necessary for her and the child to follow Nero;
although a few women did go into exile in those years, it
was a matter of personal choice in solidarity with their
husbands, rather than because their own lives were in
danger. The presence of a small child made the flight much
more risky, for which reason it may be possible to attribute
this decision to Livia. Following the example of other
wives, she may have prevailed upon her husband to let her
join him. On the other hand, she was later known to be
compliant fuxor facilis), so that the family's flight may
have been prompted by her husband's decision.7 In any
case, one may speculate that the first-hand experience of
the tragedy of the civil war and of the dangers of exile?
along with the inherited political savvy of the Drusi and
the Claudii?must have played an important role in her
assent to marrying one of the two most powerful men in Rome.
3. Livia's Second Marriage: The Banquet of the Gods
On January 17th, 38 B.C., Octavian married Livia: it
was his third marriage and her second. Tiberius Claudius
Nero gave the bride away after a hasty divorce in spite of
her advanced pregnancy- Octavian, on his part, had divorced
his wife Scribonia on the day of his only child's birth.
Three months after this wedding, Livia's second son, Drusus,
was born in the house of Octavian and immediately sent to
his father's home.8
Simultaneous with Octavian's divorce from Scribonia was
13
his request to Tiberius Nero for his permission to marry
Livia. In view of Livia's advanced pregnancy, Octavian took
special care to follow the proper procedure, consulting the
pontifices on the legality of the arrangement. In Tacitus'
version, however, Livia is abducta on account of her beauty
(cupidine formael, with the implication that Octavian had
acted like a stereotypically lustful tyrant. The beautiful
victim of such hateful violence was, however, not at all
recalcitrant; on the contrary, she may even have assented to
it fincertum an invitara). Tacitus uses a stock situation in
ancient historiography (lustful tyrants persecuting
respectable women and virgins, usually to the tyrant's own
ruin), with a sardonic twist?Livia is no noble heroine, but
a conniving adulteress.* Tacitus is alone in this;
according to H. Flory, the other main sources (Suetonius,
Velleius, Dio) agree on Octavian's request to Nero, using
expressions that indicate the prospective bridegroom's
preoccupation with propriety (as much as the circumstances
would allow), and the cordial relations between the two men.
In particular, the expressions referring to Nero's role
indicate the consent of a father to a daughter's marriage.
Flory interprets them as a suggestion that Tiberius Nero's
consent was essential because Livia was possibly in manu.
since this old-fashioned form of marriage may have suited an
aristocrat like him. Such marriages, however, had become
increasingly rare: Livia may have been just a filiafanilias.
14
As S. Treggiari states, divorce could apparently be initi-
ated even by a filiafamilias without paternal consent. The
father (or else any relative having moral authority in the
family) or a guardian could subseguently approve a new
betrothal.10 The presence of the father, or of the
authority figure who took his place, was not necessary, and
his participation in the rituals at the wedding ceremony
therefore indicated approval.
Thus, the request for Nero's consent, his participation
in the ceremony, and Octavian's enquiry to the pontifices
were not the behavior of a tyrant mortifying his victim and
scoffing at social conventions, but just the opposite.
Octavian wanted to avoid a scandal, as far as possible, and
maintain cordial relations with Tiberius Nero, in order to
gain respectability and support against Sextus Pompeius. As
for Tiberius Nero, he may have seen this marriage almost as
a personal revenge on Sextus (a relative of the jilted
Scribonia), for his lack of respect towards Nero in
Sicily.11
Despite their ability to inspire slanderous gossip,
marriages of this type were not uncommon in Rome; there had
been precedents, more or less recent. In 83 B.C., Caecilia
Metella, Sulla's wife, brought about the divorce of her
pregnant daughter Aemilia in order to marry her to young
Pompey, a necessary ally to Sulla. For the occasion, Pompey
had quickly discarded his wife Antistia; the alliance,
15
however, did not outlast Aemilia's death during childbirth
shortly after. More recently, Octavian's sister Octavia had
married Antony while still expecting a child from her de-
ceased husband Marcellus.12 Thus, marriages such as
Livia's were not a novelty among the elite, where factional
politics often determined connubial alliances.
Nevertheless, the scandalmongers in Antony's service quickly
seized the opportunity, casting doubts on the paternity of
Livia's child (hence Octavian's enquiry to the pontifices).
Lampoons began to circulate about lucky pairs who begot
children in three months, as a reply to Octavian's fuss over
Antony's relationship with Cleopatra.13
There was more ammunition for Antony's partisans. The
scandalous banquet of the gods, held during a famine caused
by Sextus' grain embargo, recurred around the time of the
marriage and may even have been Octavian and Livia's wedding
party. The theme of the mime enacted for the occasion was
nova divorum adulteria, in which Octavian?disguised as his
tutelary god Apollo?committed some unheard-of adultery,
hence impius. Flory speculates that Livia, the bride, may
have appeared as Juno, and Tiberius Nero as Jupiter; the
adultery may refer to Apollo stealing Juno from Jupiter.
There were recent precedents for this type of activity, as
there had been for Octavian's marriage: Antony and
Cleopatra's divine and Dionysiac masquerades and Sextus
Pompeius' Neptunian impersonations, in 42 and 41 B.C.
16
Octavian's banquet was probably a parody of his rivals7
divinizing postures.14
An amphoriskos in the museum of St. Petersburg,
recently studied by F. Ghedini, lends some support to
Flory's argument. The scenes that grace this artifact were,
until recently, believed to represent a generic allegory of
love: Apollo and Diana appear surrounded by a flock of
playful Erotes, or Cupids, who direct their flight toward an
enthroned Venus, beckoning to Apollo. Walking toward the
goddess is a girl carrying a pitcher of water, followed by a
Cupid bearing a torch. The attraction between Venus and
Apollo is an entirely new theme, not attested in mythology
and scarcely represented in Italic religions, except in the
Etruscan. The Venus represented here is a stately,
dignified Roman divinity (possibly Venus Genetrix), not her
seductive and frivolous Hellenistic counterpart. The
implied erotic tension between Venus and Apollo is strength-
ened by the flight of the Cupids and by the girl carrying
the pitcher, possibly for purification before a marriage,
suggested by the Cupid with the torch. A marriage between
Venus and Apollo is suggested here, under the auspices of
Diana Lucina, protectress of marriage and birth. In my
opinion, the occasion for which this artifact was
commissioned must have been either Octavian's marriage to
Livia or the expected birth of their child (referred to by
the presence of Diana Lucina). The nova divorum adulteria
17
object of lampoons may therefore refer to the unusual
marriage of Apollo/Octavian and Venus/Livia represented on
this vase. The theme of the artwork has elements in common
with an event, related by Dio, at Octavian's wedding
banquet, where impertinent little delicia seem to
impersonate the likewise mischievous Erotes of the vase.
Thus the amphoriskos is not only of artistic interest, but
also as an indication of Octavian's own early divinizing
posturing in competition with his rivals'. Unlike his
rivals, Octavian quickly abandoned such posturing in favor
of a dignified Roman persona, as his conflict with Antony
grew deeper. The assimilation of Livia and Venus Genetrix
was also reserved for later times.15
Politics undoubtedly played an important part in the
union of Octavian and Livia (discussed below), but not
entirely, since the marriage lasted for fifty years. When
Tacitus acidly remarks, with characteristic innuendo, that
Octavian had taken for himself Nero's wife incertum an
invitam,. the comment may have been oddly appropriate: both
Livia and Octavian were in their prime, she hardly 20 and
Octavian 25, and both had previously married older spouses
for political reasons. Tiberius Claudius Nero had already
had a political career while the aristocratic Scribonia,
Octavian's jilted wife, was overripe and had neither
patience nor understanding for Octavian's escapades.
Octavian was sickly, not as dashing as his rival Antony, but
18
rather handsome and with an established reputation as a
womanizer. Livia must have been attractive, judging by
archeological and literary evidence, even if both are
reliable only to a certain extent: portraits were idealized,
and literary references, especially those in biased
historical narratives such as Tacitus', followed a theme
familiar in the tradition of the tyrant, that of the beauty
of the victim.16
Her personality seemed perfectly in tune with his:
Tacitus' remark cum artibus mariti . . . bene composita is
accurate to some extent, in that both could exert the utmost
control over their own feelings, and knew how to control
others as well. As a complement to Augustus' lack of
affectation, Livia showed extreme courtesy and graciousness
?perhaps more than snobs like Tacitus would consider
acceptable?and was known for being accommodating. Her
facilitas. evident in the equanimity with which she treated
even the most blatant of Octavian's escapades could,
however, be interpreted as overindulgence. On the other
hand, adultery in Rome was, like divorce, politically
expedient; Octavian's excuse for his many affairs was state
security, i.e., a tactic for uncovering the conspiracies of
his enemies. Livia's indulgence may have had a similar
purpose, i.e., to enable her to achieve her own ends by
diverting his attention. She was also loyal and
irreproachably chaste. By these means she gained his
19
enduring affection; for fifty years she held an exalted
position both in his house and in the country.
Octavian was partial to women, yet never before had he
acted in such "unseemly haste"; this haste, which raised
eyebrows even in Rome's jaded atmosphere, was not motivated
by a tyrant's lust and desire for immediate gratification,
as Tacitus' comments suggest, but rather by an appraisal of
his own situation on the eve of the war against Sextus
Pompeius.17
4. Political consequences
Of the three warlords active in these years, Antony was
the most popular, Octavian the least. Expropriations in
Italy to obtain rewards for veterans had alienated part of
the propertied classes, both in Rome and in Italy.
Octavian's name was still associated with the proscriptions,
as well as support for arming the proletariat. His
associates were mostly novi homines of little distinction,
provincials whose families had not yet seen a consulship, or
adventurers enriched by more or less shady business. Antony
was known for his flamboyance, but also for his bravery in
battle; he was a skilled military man, and had attracted the
more reputable elements of the propertied classes. Sextus
Pompeius was also widely popular in Rome, despite his
responsibility for the naval blockade that was starving the
city. An adventurer rather than a true leader, his army
consisted to a great extent of freed slaves, and his
20
admirals were freedmen. In retrospect, he was judged more
as a pirate than as a legitimate contender for power.ie
Given the above, Octavian needed to raise support for
his enterprise against Sextus; Livia made her providential
appearance at the appropriate moment. Her family was most
ancient and distinguished, a blue-blood on account of her
Claudian lineage, reinforced by the oligarchic tradition of
the Drusi. With this marriage Octavian hoped to obtain love
and support on the domestic front, respectability and
influential backing in the political arena. According to M.
Levi, the marriage marked the culmination of a period in
which Octavian reconsidered his position toward those
representatives of the old aristocracy that had not joined
either one of his rivals. This reevaluation can be detected
in Octavian's new policy of compromise with his former
adversaries, which balanced and integrated the traditional
and conservative claims of the republican-Pompeian
aristocracy with the more radical program of his adoptive
father in favor of the armed and provincial masses.1*
Yet, despite Octavian's gamble, aristocratic backers
remained a minority; they were "conspicuous for their
rarity," as Syme points out. Only slowly did the new
marriage alliance begin to attract ambitious aristocrats:
Appius Claudius Pulcher, one of Livia's relatives and consul
of that year, Valerius Messalla Corvinus and Paullus
Aemilius Lepidus. Before 36 B.C. Octavian's aristocratic
21
supporters remained quite isolated, with the majority of the
aristocracy still divided between Sextus Pompeius and
Antony. Even after Sextus' death in 36 B.C. only a few of
his adherents, rather unremarkable ones, passed to Octavian.
The most noteworthy of this group?and only on account of
his family name?was Marcus Tullius Cicero, son of the
orator, who for obvious reasons could not join sides with
his father's executioner; his presence in Octavian's party
had great symbolic value. The rest of Sextus' array
transferred itself to Antony, who found himself at the head
of a coalition consisting of followers of Sextus, the last
Catonians, and the last surviving assassins of Caesar, with
the addition of Domitius Ahenobarbus. The latter, an
independent admiral with his own fleet, was perhaps the most
significant figure after Antony himself, since he was the
son of Caesar's enemy and of Portia, sister of Cato.ao
To a casual viewer, the Antonian side would seem the
true representative of the Republican cause, given its vast
array of old aristocratic names, with all the power of
tradition behind it. In reality, as Syme suggests, such a
display presented few real advantages and some big problems.
In the atmosphere brought about by the upheavals of the last
decades the criteria of worth had shifted as radically as
the balance of power, so that now distinguished family
traditions ranked below enterprise, talent and vigor.
Antony's backing lacked cohesiveness, held together as it
22
was by family ties and personal loyalties rather than
sharing a common program or cause. The fallacy of such
alliance eventually manifested itself in a flurry of
desertions to Octavian's side on the eve of Actium,
apparently?and conveniently?motivated by Cleopatra's
influence on Antony (discussed below).21
5. The Wife Of The Triumvir: First Public Honors
In 36 B.C., after the defeat of Sextus Pompeius and the
dismissal of Lepidus, the Senate granted Octavian the
tribunician sacrosanctity, a golden statue in the Forum with
an inscription commemorating the restoration of peace on
land and sea, the right to sit with the tribunes, and a
house on the Palatine to replace the one he had devoted to
Apollo when it was struck by thunderbolt. On this occasion
he was probably also granted the privilege to dine and hold
banquets with his family in the Temple of Concordia, one of
the many honors which he subsequently extended to Antony as
well."
To gain momentum over his partner and rival, Octavian
initiated a campaign to pacify and strengthen the north-
eastern border of Italy, which had been infiltrated by raids
of Illyrian tribes. The success of this enterprise, as well
as the victory against Pompeius, brought more adherents to
his party from all classes. In 35 B.C., in the wake of his
successes, special honors were accorded to Livia and
Octavia, presumably as wives of the triumvirs: the honor
23
accorded them was sacrosanctity, the right to be portrayed
in statues and the release from tutelage."
The concession of these privileges is notable because
it marks the beginning of an increasingly public role for
the women related to the rulers of Rome, something that
Livia, more than Octavia, exploited artfully in agreement
with her husband's policies. In particular, the character
of the grant of sacrosanctity needs to be examined in some
detail, in order to assess and define the novelty of Livia's
and Octavia's position in the new order.
Most studies on Livia tend to minimize these early
recognitions, either for scarcity of sources or?in the case
of sacrosanctity?on account of its ambiguous nature.
Despite its importance in Livia's political career, the
issue of sacrosanctity has attracted little attention in
the past, remote as well as more recent. Of the ancient
sources, only Dio Cassius reports the conferment of this
grant; of the more modern scholars, some merely report the
information without comment, while others hold conflicting
views on the subject.24
Although more attention has been focused on the title of
Augusta and its implications, the grant of early privileges
on the part of the Senate at Octavian's request should be
regarded as equally important as the later, more glamorous,
developments. A chronological examination of the first
honors in the frame of Octavian's policy indicates his step-
24
by-step approach in the creation of a "First Family" to
represent the entire commonwealth, as a response to the de-
mands of the political situation of the moment, rather than
as the culmination of a pre-ordained plan.as
First of all, these initial honors were a recognition
of the fact that the functions of Livia and Octavia/
presumably as wives of the Triumvirs, were not just familial
in character, but overlapped with public roles. In Rome
domestic virtue was not exclusively private, as it was in
Greece, for instance, but had a very public purpose; it was
the foundation of the family and, to a larger extent, of the
state. Wives, mothers and sisters had always played an
important, though mostly unofficial, role in the politics of
the past from the very beginning, as means to alliances,
teachers of family pride and traditions, symbols for liber-
ation movements, peace-makers. Lucretia and Verginia may
have been legendary, but the offences to their honor were
emblematic of the injustices suffered by the community and
became the rallying point for the overthrow of tyrannies.
The Sabine women and the mother of Coriolanus averted
potentially divisive conflicts; Octavia had followed the
tradition by marrying Antony and attempting to mediate
between her husband and her brother. Even after the end of
her marriage she was a highly valued pawn for Octavian in
his propaganda against Cleopatra. Livia too had followed
tradition by supplying a link?at this stage still tenuous?
25
between the Triumvir and the aristocracy, bringing the
distinction of her ancient family to support his cause.
A further element that contributes to the importance of
these grants is their personal character; they were conhyphenminus
ferred on Livia and Octavia not only as wives of the rulers,
but also, more significantly, as chief representatives of
Roman womanhood. As such, they are in sharp contrast with
another privilege received in this period as wives, that of
dining in the temple of Concordia. As stated by Dio:
"Octavian . . . set up statues [of Antony] in the Temple of
Concordia, and gave him the privilege to have banquets there
with wife and children, just as once had been voted for
himself" (kappaalphaiota omicrontonos Kalphaiotatonossigmaalpharho . . . tauphi Alphatonosnutauomeganuiotatonosphi . . . epsiloniotakappaomicrontonosnualphasigma1 epsilontonosnu tauphi
"Omicron?omicronnuomicronepsiloniotatonosomega epsilontonossigmatauetasigmaepsilon, tauomicron re epsilontonosxiomicronupsilonsigmaiotatonosalphanu sigmaupsilontonosnu tau epsilon rfl gammaupsilonnualphaiotakappaiotatonos kappaalphaiota tauomicroniotasigma1
tauepsilontonoskappanuomicroniotasigma1 epsilontonossigmatauiotaalphasigmathetaalphaiota epsilontonosnutaualphaupsilondieresistonostheta'?chiepsiloniotanu ?<$omegakappaepsilonnu, omegasigmapiepsilonrho piomicrontauepsilontonos kappaalphaiota alphaupsilontonostauomega
epsilontonospsiiotadieresistonosIotatonosphiiotasigmatauomicron). Neither Livia nor Octavia is mentioned by name,
but they are grouped with the children as beneficiaries of
this privilege, even if the honor is meant primarily for
their husbands.26
The Temple of Concordia, which had been one of the
official meeting places for the Senate since 63 B.C., had
been built by Camillus in 367 B.C. as a reminder of the
blessings of political harmony in the community. After the
Gracchan agitations it had been restored in 121 B.C. to
celebrate the return to stability. The permission to dine
in such a place, given not just to the triumvirs but to
26
their families as well, indicates that at this point the
harmony of the state was closely identified with that behyphenminus
tween the families of the two arbiters of power. The wives
therefore are not individualized, as the emphasis here
stresses the function of the triumvirs as patresfamilias.
Volkmann states that Octavian's purpose in extending his own
privilege to his absent brotherhyphenminusinhyphenminuslaw was to draw attention
to the neglect suffered by Antony's (legitimate) Roman
family on account of his (illegitimate) Egyptian one. The
inclusion of wife and children is therefore meant to stress
those familial and civic obligations which Antony had
totally rejected.37
With the privileges of 35 B.C., on the other hand,
Octavian meant to draw attention to Livia and Octavia as
ideal representatives of Roman womanhood. These privileges
constitute the kernel of most of the subsequent distinctions
offered to Livia in the course of her life.
5. 1. Sacrosanctitas: Tribunicia or Vestal?
The sacrosanctity granted to Livia and Octavia is
qualified as tribunician (epsilontonoskappa tauomicronupsilondieresistonos omicron?omicroniotatonosomicronupsilon tauomicroniotasigma1 <5eta?alphatonosrhochiomicroniotasigma1); the
attribute of a male function to an honor bestowed on women
seems a patent contradiction of those ancient Roman mores
that Octavian wanted to appear to champion. For this reason
Willrich claimed that Livia's and Octavia's sacrosanctity
could not be tribunician, but rather that it was modeled on
the prerogative of the Vestals. His hypothesis, followed by
27
Sandels and Hohl, seemed viable in the context of the other
honors voted in the packet, especially the freedom from
tutelage, which had been sanctioned by the Twelve Tables for
the Vestals alone. Thus, for Willrich, the hierarchy of
female public figures in Rome had the Vestals on top, Livia
immediately below and Octavia below Livia. Strack and
Bauman instead have argued persuasively to the contrary,
Strack pointing out that the Vestals were not sacrosanctae
but only sanctae, since the existing instances of
sacrosanctus in that period referred to the potestas of the
tribunes of the people or to other plebeian magistrat-
ures.2*
Before discussing the nature of these grants any fur-
ther, it seems necessary to attempt a definition of the
terms sanctus and sacrosanctus to see in what respect they
differ. Sanctitas and the adjective sanctus derive from the
verb sancire, "to guarantee". When modifying words like
fides, foedus, iusiurandum, coniuqium. the adjective means
"solidly established, observed, respected," and as such
overlaps with sacer. "sacred", because a pact is guaranteed
by a ritual act. Applied to people, it defines kings and
magistrates of patrician origin. That which is guaranteed
by religion is respectable, venerable, noble, and morally
perfect; in this case, sanctity overlaps to some extent with
chastity and innocence. Castus refers originally to a
person who has been instructed in ritual and who regularly
28
practices ritual abstinences to render more effective the
rites he or she performs, hence somebody pure in body and,
by Augustan times, in spirit. Consequently, anybody who
lives by norms of absolute integrity is "consecrated to,
belonging to the divinity." In this respect the adjective
sanctae fully defines the Vestal Virgins, who belong to the
goddess because castae. i.e., they practice ritual absti-
nence from sex for religious or magical purposes, and who
gain respect and veneration on this account. Their ritual
purity protects them against offences, because their
offenders pay with their life. Sancta, as synonym of casta.
can in certain cases also be applied to a matron, who,
although not ritually a virgin, preserves her mind and body
untainted by corruption, moral as well as physical.2*
The tribunes of the people were occasionally defined as
sancti, but their religious status was of a different type.
Since they did not possess imperium, an attribute of kings
and of patrician magistrates?identified by the use of
fasces, lictors, insignia and the right to auspices?the
tribunes' security rested on an oath, sworn by the people,
that made them inviolable. The tribunes were not originally
magistrates and their privileges were conferred religione
rather than lege. As representatives of Rome's plebeian
community, which had organized as a social group at the time
of the first secession, the tribunes were sacrosancti
because they benefited from a religious guarantee f
29
on account of their being sacri. Sacer in this case refers
to the religious aspect of the tribunate in opposition to
the legalistic power of the magistrates. Alternatively,
they were also made sancti by a sacrum. that is, an oath, a
prayer to the gods and a lex sacrata. that dedicated the
offender to the infernal gods. The tribunician power then
had religious character before being legally accepted with
the Lex Valeria Horatia of 449 B.C. The penalty threatened
by the lex sacrata (later replaced by maiestas) was exacted
by the people who, by means of the oath, had the obligation
to ensure the execution of this law's precepts.
Sacrosanctity was permanently connected with the tribunes'
power, thus it could only be applied to women' s honors by
analogy, as indicated by Dio's expression epsilontonoskappa tauomicronupsilontonos omicron?omicroniotatonosomicronupsilon tauomicroniotasigma1
iotatonoseta?alphatonosrhochiomicroniotasigma1 ("on a similar basis to the tribunes"). The
offences against which the tribunician sacrosanctity
protected plebeian magistrates are rather vaguely alluded to
by Livy, while Dionysius of Halicarnassus lists a series of
specific offences. The protection covered not only physical
attacks, but also those against one's reputation and
dignity.30
It is tempting to side with Willrich and assume that
Livia and Octavia's honors paralleled, or were modeled on,
those of the Vestals, since the virgins had thus far been
the only Roman women to enjoy many privileges, such as the
release from tutelage, as well as some of the later honors
30
voted to Livia. With reference to protection against
physical harm and insults, it should be remembered that the
inviolability of the Vestal had its origin and motivation in
her ritual purity and ceased once that was forfeited.
Moreover, the Vestal's privileges derived from the fact that
she no longer had a family, as the ritual "snatching away"
fcaptio) from her parents at an early age makes clear. She
was no longer under her father's jurisdiction and protec-
tion, therefore she had to receive it from a different
source, the community, whose daughter she now was, and the
goddess she served. The arm of the law could not reach her
against her will, not even to force her to give testimony,
and she was accountable only to the pontifices. Livia and
Octavia, on the other hand, although chaste and exemplary as
married women, were under no such obligation as that of the
Vestal, nor would Octavian?presumably?have liked to put
them in a position above the law but under the pontifices,
one of whom, at that time, was his enemy Lepidus. In
absence then of a vow of perpetual chastity, the most
comprehensive protection for a public figure was afforded by
the tribunician sacrosanctity or?lacking the necessary pre-
requisites, in the case of women?by something similar to it
in its protective range.31
Despite all analysis, however, there still remains a
certain ambiguity about the nature of this particular privi-
lege. As mentioned earlier, the offices of the tribunes and
31
those of the Vestals had a common religious rather than
legal character, hence the protection they offered was
similar, or at least could pass for such. This may explain
the silence of most sources on the nature of this grant.32
Another contested point concerns the specific functions
of Livia and Octavia which made the grant necessary.
Contrary to Mommsen's hypothesis that they received it as
wives of the rulers, Purcell argues that the motivation for
this grant was the privileged status that Livia and Octavia
were to assume as representatives of Roman womanhood. In
these years they were encouraged to become public figures
supporting Octavian's budding policy of moral restoration of
Roman values, in opposition to Antony's increasingly
orientalizing attitudes. Livia's and Octavia's public image
therefore had to be managed and manipulated in accordance
with the traditional values of family and country embraced
by Octavian. In this context a carefully orchestrated
program of propaganda, playing on the ambiguity inherent in
the grant of sacrosanctity and other Vestal privileges, may
have eased the acceptance of Livia and Octavia in their
public roles. Since family was the microcosm of the social
and cultural relations of the Roman state, the "frontier
between domestic and public, between affairs of state and of
the family . . . politics and household," as N. Purcell
defines it, could be crossed back and forth when necessary,
since it was not "an obvious, single, easily perceived on-
32
off line, but a remarkably nuanced zone of transition." As
a logical consequence, the women of the budding "First
Family" were co-opted into service to present a foil to the
scandalous behavior of the Queen of Egypt. Bauman has
recently argued that the impetus for the concession of
sacrosanctity to the women came from Octavian, who was
preparing to use Antony's repeated snubs of Octavia as a
pretext for war. By giving his sister protection against
offences of any kind (including moral ones), Octavian could
manipulate Antony's behavior into a crime against a
representative of the state. Livia, in Bauraan's opinion,
was included as an afterthought.33
Though cogent, Bauman's argument, by limiting itself
to the specific political moment (the antagonism to Antony)
fails to take into account the larger picture. As Purcell
points out, for Livia and Octavia crossing the boundary
between private and public might prove dangerous as well as
rewarding. Women, as well as their male relatives, had been
the targets of political attacks in the past: Clodia,
Fulvia, Sassia and, more recently, Livia had incurred
"scurrilous vilification." Character assassination was an
established tradition in political rhetoric, and it did not
spare the virtuous matron if she became a public figure:
even Cornelia, for instance, was rumored to have committed a
murder. In view of this tradition, as well as of the fresh
start of hostilities between the two brothers-in-law, the
33
grant of sacrosanctity to the women was essential.34
6. The Creation of Livia's Public Image
It may safely be assumed that the foundations of
Livia's virtuous image were laid in this period to create a
paragon of Roman propriety and virtue against the foreign
ways of the Queen of Egypt. Although Livia does not figure
prominently in works by the writers associated with
Octavian's party during these years, it is possible to
imagine the impact that her presence and that of Octavia
must have had in the war of words and propaganda themes
preceding the battle of Actium. Of Octavia Plutarch reports
that the nobility of her behavior toward Antony's children
and friends despite her dismissal damaged her ex-husband's
credibility and standing in the years before Actium more
than any accusation made by Octavian's side. Pity and
admiration for her increased proportionally to the scorn for
Antony, while those who had met Cleopatra regarded her as
inferior to Octavia in beauty and character.35
If Octavia's superiority to Cleopatra was measured on
the human and emotional level, Livia's shone forth with
respect to those personal qualities that in Rome had great
ideological value. During her visit to Rome in Caesar's
days, Cleopatra seems to have done little to boost her
popularity; Cicero had nothing good to say about either her
or her entourage, noted for their superbia. His constant
use of the word reqina when referring to her should be
34
interpreted as more than just a title designating an ally:
it suggested the hated title rex and added to the hostile
tone of Cicero's remarks. Superbia, libido, crudelitas and
vis constituted the character make-up of the stereotypical
tyrant?Greek and oriental?found in Roman and Greek litera-
ture; to these were added lavish displays of luxury, always
a symbol of moral decadence. Judging from the evidence of
propaganda themes in contemporary Roman writers, primarily
the poets, and by their echoes in later historical works,
Cleopatra was made to fit the bill.
Her love of luxury became proverbial, although it
seems to be a later invention, because it does not
explicitly appear in the propaganda of these years. Later
romanticized accretions are probably responsible for
Plutarch's celebrated and mostly fictionalized narrative of
her arrival at Tarsus in the manner of Aphrodite. The event
is not related with the same resonance by other writers;
Strabo, for instance, was Very familiar with that area and
would have reported on it had it been as fabulous an event
as Plutarch describes. Far more publicized were her
sumptuous banquets and the lavish gifts she gave to her
guests, as well as the inimitable life-style that she and
Antony enjoyed with their associates. Later she was por-
trayed as heavily made-up and covered with jewels. There
was probably a certain amount of truth in some of these
images, since Egypt's wealth was ancient and the pharaonic
35
rituals elaborate; on the other hand, part of this
characterization seems to be dictated by the presence of
stereotypes concerning oriental potentates.3*
Other accusations concerned Cleopatra's supposed drunk-
enness?a fault actually more imputable to Antony, as
indicated by Octavian's libels. It was conveniently
extended to her because she was his partner in banqueting,
revelry and generally undignified behavior, such as their
nightly escapades in the taverns of Alexandria and the
pranks they played in disguise. The motif of her
drunkenness, real and metaphorical, appears early, in
Horace's odes: fortunaque dulci ebria; mentemque lymphatam
Mareotico. and much less tastefully in Propertius, assiduo
lingua sepulta mero. Drunkenness went hand-in-hand with
immorality, since it removed all social and cultural re-
straints; as such, it suited Cleopatra's persona as a loose
woman and hybristic tyrant. She already had a reputation as
Caesar's and Antony's mistress; Propertius echoes official
themes when he calls her regina meretrix incesti Canopi. who
chooses her lovers even from among her slaves (famulos inter
femina trita suos). Such a woman has enslaved a Roman
general, asking as a price of her favors the walls of Rome.
The words pretium and coniuais obsceni reinforce the images
and allusions to prostitution and amorality,37
Not only was Cleopatra amoral, she was a castrating
woman: Horace presents her surrounded by contaminato . . .
36
greae turpium/morbo virorum,. with Roman soldiers commanded
by spadonibus . . . ruaosisf the odiousness of their task
emphasized by the use of the verb servire. Men who serve a
woman are on the same level as eunuchs, a theme repeatedly
echoed by Dio. Roman senators and knights, even the
jhyphenminusmperator Antony, are unmanned, turned into eunuchs by their
contact with the queen. This must have been a common
refrain in those years, and not only in poetry, as extant
archeological evidence proves. The mythological theme of
Hercules unmanned by Omphale decorates ceramic bowls and
drinking vessels from Arretium, with clear allusions to
Antony's reputed "Herculean" descent; in addition Cleopatra
was, like Omphale, an oriental queen. An Arretine vessel
shows Hercules reclining in a carriage, dressed in soft
feminine fabrics, a parasol held over his head by a female
slave. His head is turned, looking back at Omphale on
another carriage, who wears his lion skin and sports his
club. The two carriages are followed by soldiers carrying
gigantic drinking horns; Omphale's maid is also handing her
a gigantic drinking cup, a clear allusion to Antony and
Cleopatra's drinking parties. Likewise, in Octavian's
speech reported by Dio, Antony is said to be ineffective as
a leader because he has become flabby and feminized (epsilontonoskappataubetathetahyphenminus
iotadieresistonosIotatonoslambdaupsilonnutaualphaiota), having wasted away his strength by playing the
woman (gammaiotaeta/alphaiotakappaiotatonos zetaepsilon iota); thus, he has become as feeble as one.
Effeminacy and castration oddly surface also in Antony's own
37
iconographical representations in the Orient: in pageants
and statues he appeared as Dionysus, hardly a specimen of
divine manhood, who in one version of his myth had been
castrated and torn to pieces. In Egypt, as spouse of
Cleopatra-Isis, he was honored as Osiris, her maimed
husband, king of the dead. Cleopatra is then also a witch,
a Circe and a Medea, who enslave and transform powerful men
by means of magic and potions: Antony follows her litter on
foot, among her eunuchs.38
Lastly, Cleopatra was also accused of crudelitas and
of greed, other typical sins of the tyrant, although she did
not seem to have gained a reputation for being excessively
cruel. She did, however, have her sister Arsinoe murdered
by Antony's soldiers, even as she sought protection in a
temple. Her brother was also eliminated, possibly by
poison, in which she was expert. After her return from
Actium, she executed the wealthiest Egyptians opposed to her
in order to confiscate their wealth, and she did not hesi-
tate to despoil temples and sacred places of their treasures
to finance a new army and purchase new allies. Although
these acts of cruelty and impiety were motivated by her
desperate political situation, and as such they may not
qualify as pure greed, this last factor is implied by Jose-
phus, who describes her desire for more and more land as an
almost pathological trait.1*
Such unflattering portrayal is confirmed by the anony-
38
mous author of the recently discovered Carmen de Bello
Actiaco. a fragmentary work of poetry found on papyrus at
Herculaneum, composed between 22 B.C. and A.D. 12. In it
Cleopatra's cruelty often appears as an end to itself,
particularly in the description of her experiments with
poisons on common criminals, with the queen walking about
observing the grisly results (col. 6).*?
In contrast with this image of Cleopatra, as must have
been familiar in Rome in those days, are Livia and Octavian.
Suetonius reports that Octavian preferred to wear clothes
spun and woven by his womenfolk, describing at length the
simplicity of his tastes in matters of furnishings and food,
and the unpretentiousness of his houses. A similar image
was projected by Livia; her diet was apparently frugal,
since she attributed her good health and long life to her
daily small salad and glass of bitter wine. Her clothing
and appearance were consonant with her husband's traditional
tenets, to the point that admonitions against sartorial
excesses and undignified behavior were unnecessary.41
These elements seem to indicate frugality and abhor-
rence of luxury; however?while Livia and Octavian were
probably not as ostentatious as some of their contemporaries
?epigraphical evidence shows that Livia was an extremely
wealthy woman who owned large estates both in Rome and
abroad. Although her father had been proscribed and most of
the family's wealth may have been confiscated during the
39
civil war, she still owned some property. The Villa ad
Gallinas, where Livia received her first omen of the
family's future greatness, already belonged to her during
her betrothal to Octavian. More property was bequeathed to
her in the course of time, as can be inferred from the
nomenclature of her slaves. Thanks to the release from
tutela, she could dispose personally of her vast resources
with the help of a host of slaves, who performed very
specialized and miniscule tasks. In a study on the data
obtained from her columbarium in Rome, S. Treggiari
formulated a partial estimate of the numbers of urban slaves
employed in Livia's household, from a rather early period to
late in her life: it amounts to about 1,100 people. Even
taking into consideration the high turn-over of some jobs,
such as that of hair-dresser and of pedisequus. whose
holders Livia seemed inclined to manumit, and the
chronological span mentioned above, the number gives a good
idea of her wealth. This number provides also a fairly good
indication of the proportion of dependents in her other
estates. The degree of specialization of some jobs is also
evidence that, given her increasing public role, Livia's
life-style was not as frugal as one would believe. She
owned a number of hairdressers, slaves in charge of her
wardrobe of ceremonial dresses, and probably others in
charge specifically of purple clothes, not to mention
masseuses and perfume-makers. In view of all this,
40
Suetonius' statement about her spinning and weaving her
husband's clothes should not be taken entirely at face
value; Livia was a wealthy aristocrat, and those old-
fashioned activities attributed to her must have resembled
hobbies rather than the absorbing occupations they were in
the times of Lucretia."2
In contrast to Cleopatra's superbia, Livia's comitas
which?as mentioned earlier?could appear almost excessive
to some old-fashioned people, as Tacitus implies. Comple-
menting her comitas was Livia's recognized mercifulness:
Cleopatra knew about this, for she pretended to have set
aside a number of jewels as a gift to her to gain her inter-
cession with Octavian. In this respect, it can also be
assumed that Octavian's own metamorphosis from the butcher
of Perusia and Philippi into a more humane and milder
statesman, may have been brought about by a process of
political maturation to which Livia's advice, exemplified in
Dio's passage on Cinna, was probably not extraneous. She
continued to exercise and advise clemency throughout her
long career, so that at her death the Senate voted an arch
in her honor?something unheard of?for having saved the
lives of many, and Velleius defines her femina. cuius poten-
tia nemo sensit nisi aut levatione periculi aut accessione
diqnitatis. Many owed their careers to her, and remembered
her with devotion, as did the emperor Galba. Others were
suspected of having succeeded by currying her favor, and
41
Tiberius later condemned such amicitias muliebres. Even
Tacitus, in her obituary, is forced to admit that while
alive Livia was the only shelter from Tiberius' worst im-
pulses. Her death heralds the period of terror, the
dominatio of her son, who until then had been restrained by
a deep-rooted deference toward his mother, whose authority
held in check even Sejanus. Her last merciful act appeared
to have been the suppression of letters denouncing Agrippina
and Nero. Yet, despite all this, paradoxically Livia would
be accused by her detractors, at a later stage, of crimes
against her family similar to those committed by
Cleopatra.43
7. The Aftermath of Actium
After the celebrated victory and the final conquest of
Egypt, culminating in the suicides of Antony and Cleopatra,
Octavian became the sole master of the empire. His
reorganization of the East left much of Antony's arrange-
ments untouched, with minor changes. Egypt, on account of
its wealth and importance as Rome's major corn supplier, he
set aside for himself, preventing senators from setting foot
in it. A knight would govern the region on Octavian's
behalf. On his return to Rome the Senate and the people
voted for him many honors, some of which he refused, mindful
of Caesar's example. In 29 B.C. he celebrated his triumph;
on this occasion young Tiberius Claudius Nero, Livia's
eldest son, participated in the lusus Troiae. a cavalry
42
exhibition, leading a corp of older boys. Tiberius also
appeared in the triumphal procession for the victory of
Actium, riding the left trace-horse. He and his younger
brother Drusus had returned to live with their mother at the
death of their father, Tiberius Claudius Nero, in 32 B.C.44
Among the many privileges voted to Octavian was the
grant of another tribunician attribute in addition to
sacrosanctity, the ius auxilii up to a-one mile radius
outside Rome. The Senate also confirmed the title of liber-
ator, already used by Octavian during the Triumvirate.
Despite this, numismatic evidence attests to the fact that
Octavian himself was beginning to place less emphasis on
this title because of its revolutionary connotation. The
images and ideas with which he wanted to be associated now
were those of father and founder of the reestablished order
and harmony, symbolized by Apollo the musician. In Apollo's
honor Octavian had 80 silver statues of himself melted and
used the profit to dedicate votive offerings of gold in
Apollo's temple on the Palatine. For a short while he
considered becoming the new Romulus, but the founder of Rome
could prove an unsuitable choice in the as yet unstable
political climate. Some versions of his legend had him, in
fact, murdered by senators; moreover Romulus had built Rome
after killing his own brother. The analogies with recent
events were too obvious.45
Lacking a suitable archetypal figure with whom to
43
identify, for the time being the unofficial appellation of
princeps senatus was used, and the authority of consul. In
28 B.C. Octavian undertook to purge the Senate of those
Antonian partisans that, in a show of dementia after
Actium, he had not only spared, but allowed to retain
senatorial rank. Not all the ex-Antonians were eliminated:
applying the principle of divide et impera, Octavian
retained the successful deserters, such as the infamous
Munatius Plancus, and discarded those who could not meet the
standard property requirements. In 27 B.C. the Republic was
resuscitated, according to Octavian, when he resigned his
powers to the Senate; others saw this year as the birthdate
of the monarchy. While superficially governing as a primus
inter pares, relying on his auctoritas, Octavian had control
over the legions situated along the borders, as well as
being the master of Egypt and having a personal body-guard
of Germans.4'
Octavian's symbolic gesture was amply rewarded by the
Senate: the title of Augustus conferred by the Senate, with
its sacral overtones stressed that auctoritas?the intangi-
ble but necessary quality for a ruler?was now the
foundation of the new regime, and sanctioned the transition
from military rule to civilian administration. By virtue of
the ius auxilii and of his tribunician powers Octavian
became officially the protector of the people of Rome, now
his personal clientela. Likewise the army, for the most
44
part under his control, looked to him for rewards and
advancements. As Augustus, Octavian was allowed to decorate
the doorposts of his house with laurel bushes and to have a
corona civica over the door. In the Senate a gold shield
was hung, with Augustus' virtues inscribed on it. These
honors, Zanker and Alfoldi observed, had an ambivalent
character: on the one hand, laurel bushes traditionally
marked sites of cult, the Regia, the seats of state
priesthoods. They were also the emblems of victory and the
plants sacred to Apollo, for whom Octavian had special
devotion and with whom he identified in his earlier years.
Livia was part of this, although unofficially: the laurel
boughs probably came from one of her estates, where a
peculiar event had happened, regarded as an omen of future
greatness. Suetonius and Dio narrate how, as Octavian's new
bride, Livia had cured a wounded bird which an eagle had
dropped into her lap. Since the bird was holding a laurel
twig in her beak, Livia took the event to be an omen, and
planted the sprig, which grew into a bough: from this were
taken the branches adorning the triumphs of Augustus and
Tiberius. As for the oaken corona civica. it was a symbol
of protection of one's fellow citizens but also, in
Augustus' case, of his mercy toward those citizens whom he
had vanquished. Because the oak was Jupiter's tree, in this
case too, as with the laurel bushes, the real nature of
these honors transpired under the surface of a return to
45
republican ideals.47
The nobiles,. although alternately vanquished and
courted, could not be counted on for unreserved support.
Despite Octavian's marriage to Livia, some aristocrats had
still not accepted him: in 30 B.C., just before Actium,
Maecenas had swiftly quelled a rebellion led by young
Lepidus. Of the nobiles. some (like Messalla Corvinus)
chose to cooperate, others (like the consul Piso) did so
reluctantly out of patriotism. On the whole, Augustus'
attitude toward the nobility for the next ten to twelve
years seems one of outward respect but prudent distrust.
The provincial gentry and the knights reaped the benefits of
this, as they advanced in official careers in the service of
the state. The winning over of the nobility was achieved
gradually, by mears of matrimonial alliances with the ruling
house: this was the field of Livia's competence (examined in
the next chapter).48
46
Notes to Chapter One
1. J. Lindersky, "The Mother of Livia Augusta and the
Aufidii Lurcones of the Republic," Historia 23 (1974), pp.
463hyphenminus480: Alfidia is the accepted form of the name of Livia's
mother, instead of Aufidia. Any family relation with the
senator and famous gourmet M. Aufidius Lurco has been
discounted. Contra Tau. Rhohyphenminus Wiseman, "The Mother of Livia
Augusta," Historia 14 (1965), pp. 333hyphenminus334: Alfidia from
Marruvium of the Marsi, in an area tied to the Drusi by
friendship and clientela. However, no local Alfidii appear
in the area, only Alfii and Alfeni.
2. F. Miinzer, Romische Adelsparteien (Stuttgart 1963), pp.
229hyphenminus236; R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) Table
2. on the family connections between Drusi and Gentes
Maiores. T. P. Wiseman, Clio/s Cosmetics (Leicester 1979),
pp. 57hyphenminus103 on the legends concerning the Claudii.
3. Suet. Tib.. 2; Ovid Fasti 4. 326, Livy 29.14.12, Cic. Ero.
4. Cic. Ad Fam. 13.64, Ad Att. 6.6.1 on his warm relations
with Ti. Cl. Nero). Caes. Bellum Alex. 25, Suet. Tib. 4,
Dio, 42.40.6 on Nero's career under Caesar. Also cf. B.
Levick, Tiberius the Politician (Sidney 1976), pp.13hyphenminus15; R.
Seager, Tiberius (Berkeley 1972) pp. 7hyphenminus8; S. Treggiari,
Roman Marriage (Oxford 1991), p. 129.
5. Veil. Pat. 2.71.2, Dio 47.44.1 on Livia's father.
6. Suet. Tib. 4, 6 on Ti. Cl. Nero's activities during the
Civil War, and on the exile.
7. Appian, B.C. 4.39hyphenminus40: in a few cases, the wives
persuaded the reluctant husbands to allow them to share the
dangers of exile. The wife of Lentulus travelled disguised
as a slave to reach her husband. On the other hand, other
women who remained in Rome used their resources to win
pardons for their husbands: this is the case of the
anonymous matron praised in CIL 6. 1527 (Laudatio Thuriae).
or the wife of Coponius, who prostituted herself to Antony
to help her husband. Suet. Tib. 6 on the hardships of
fleeing with an infant. S. Treggiari (above, n. 4), pp.
241hyphenminus242: the word facilis could also have a negative
connotation, as excessive indulgence.
8. The marriage of Livia and the birth of Drusus have been
the object of ancient and recent controversies concerning
the exact date of the event. These originated from
Suetonius' statement (Claudius 11) that Claudius celebrated
47
his father's and his grandfather's (Antony) birthdays on the
same day, Jan. 14th. W. Suerbaum, ("Merkwurdige
Geburtstage," Chiron 10 [1980], pp. 327hyphenminus350) attempts to
solve the discrepancy by postulating that the banquet
mentioned by Dio at 48.44.4 refers not to the wedding but to
the betrothal. A. Guarino, instead, ("II Coup de Foudre di
Ottaviano" Labeo 27 [1981], p. 336) sees in the episode the
deductio in domum marlti, while G. Radke, ("Der Geburtstag
des alteren Drusus," Wurz. Jhb. 4 [1978], pp. 211hyphenminus213)
argues for a different date of Drusus' birthday according to
the Julian calendar (see M. Flory, "Abducta Neroni Uxor,"
Tau?Rho? 118 [1988], p. 348 n. 13 for further references).
9. Tac. Ann. 1.10.5 (abducta Neroni uxor et consult! per
ludibrium pontifices), and 5.1.2 (exin Caesar cupidine
formae aufert marito, incertum an invitacO. The situation
is used repeatedly in Greek and Roman historiography,
following Hellenistic models: cf. Tac. Ann. 12.6.2
(audivisse a parentibus, vidisse ipsos abripi coniuges ad
libita Caesarum). Suet. Gaius 24, 25, Livy, 1.58hyphenminus59
(Lucretia), 3.44hyphenminus48 (Verginia), to quote just a few.
10. Suet. Tib. 4.3 (uxorem . . . petenti Auausto
concessit); Veil. Pat. 2.79.2 (Caesar, cum prius despondente
ei Nerone . . . Liviam, also at 2.94.1); Dio 48.44.3, and
also Pliny N. H. 15.136. Cf. M. Flory (above, n. 8), p.
346, and S. Treggiari (above, n. 4), pp. 144hyphenminus145, 460.
11. Tac. Ann. 1.10.5, Dio 48.44.2 on Octavian's supposed
mockery of tradition. Suet. Tib. 4 on Sex. Pompeius' lack
of respect for Ti. Nero.
12. Plut. Pom. 9.2 on Aemilia's marriage, and Dio, 48.31.4
on Octavia's.
13. Suet. Aug. 69 on Octavian's and Antony's mutual
reproaches; Dio 48.44.5 on gossip about the child's
paternity.
14. Suet. Aug. 70 on the banquet of the gods; Plut. Ant.
24, 26hyphenminus28.3, Veil. Pat. 2. 82hyphenminus83.2 on mythological
masquerades at the Alexandrian court. Hor. ?p. 9.6 on
Sextus as Neptune. Cf. Flory (above, n. 8), pp. 353hyphenminus356,
for a more detailed discussion of the banquet.
15. Dio, 48.44.3hyphenminus4 on the deliciuia's impertinent remark to
Livia at the wedding banquet. F. Ghedini, "Augusto e la
Propaganda Apollinea nell'Amphoriskos di Leningrado,"
Archeologia Classica 38hyphenminus40 (1986hyphenminus1988), pp. 128hyphenminus135, esp. p.
130 n. 5. My own interpretation of the occasion for the
creation of the little vase differs from Ghedini's (p. 133),
who speculates a small marital crisis. The presence of
48
Diana Lucina, identified by Ghedini with Octavia, may imply
Livia's new pregnancy, which ended in miscarriage. As for
Livia's subsequent identification with Venus Genetrix, it
seems secondary to that of Ceres (cf. Ch. 4 of this study).
16. Tac. Ann- 5.1.2. Suet. Ajyg. 62.2, 69.1, 71 on
Octavian's reputation and marriages. Livy 1.58 (Lucretia),
3.44 (Verginia) on the theme of the beautiful victim, and
also Flory (above, n. 8), pp. 350-352.
17. Syme (above, n. 2), p. 229; Dio 58.2.5-6; Suet. Aug.
99.
18. Syme (above, n. 2), pp. 207-208, 222, 224, 227-28, 234.
19. M. Levi, Ottaviano Capoparte (Firenze 1933), pp. 57-58.
20. Syme (above, n. 2), p. 239; P. Sattler, Augustus und
der Senat (Gottingen 1960), p. 22; A. E. Glauning, Die
Anha"ngerschaft des Antonius und des Octavian (diss. Leipzig
1936), pp. 24, 31.
21. Syme (above, n. 2), pp. 269-270, 275, 281-83; Levi
(above, n. 9), p. 77; Glauning (above, n. 20), pp. 15, 29,
31.
22. Appian B^jC. 5.130, Dio 49.15. 5-6, 49.18.6-7.
23. Dio, 49.38.1.
24. See, for instance, J. Aschbach, "Livia, Gemahlin des
Augustus," Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Vienna (1864) Bd. 13, pp. 36-84, esp. p. 39;
G, Grether, "Livia and the Roman Imperial Cult," AJP (1946),
pp. 222-252, p. 222; F. Sandels, Frauen der Julio-
Klaudischen Familie (Darmstadt 1912), pp. 12-13; H. Willrich
Livia (Leipzig 1911), pp. 54-55; E. Hohl, "Besass Caesar
Tribunengewalt?" Klio 32 (1939), p. 70; P. L. Strack, "Zur
Tribunicia Potestas des Augustus," Klio 32 (1939), pp. 368-
369; R. Bauman, "Tribunician Sacrosanctity," Rheinisches
Museum 124 (1981), pp. 166-183, and Women and Politics in
Ancient Rome (London 1992), pp. 93-97; N. Purcell, "Livia
and the Womanhood of Rome," PCPS 212 (1986), pp. 78-105,
esp. pp. 85-87.
25. R. Winkes, "Leben und Ehrungen der Livia," Archeologia
36, (1985), p. 59.
26. Dio 49.18.6-7.
49
27. PlatnerhyphenminusAshby, Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome
(Rome 1965), pp. 138hyphenminus139 on the Temple of Concordia; H.
Volkmann Cleopatra (New York 1958), p. 143.
28. Dio 49.38.2 on the grant. Willrich (above, n. 24), pp.
54hyphenminus55; Sandels (above, n. 24), pp. 12hyphenminus13; Hohl (above, n.
24), p. 70 in favor of Vestal character. Strack (above, n.
24), pp. 368hyphenminus369; Bauman, "Tribunician Sacrosanctity,"
(above, n. 24), p. 171; Purcell (above, n. 24), p. 86 favor
the tribunician aspect.
29. H. Fugier, Recherches sur I7Expression du Sacre/ dans
la Lanoue Latine (Paris 1963), pp. 181, 188hyphenminus189, 191hyphenminus192,
251hyphenminus256hyphenminus257; C. Koch "Vesta" in R. E. 2 Reihe, ed. K,
Ziegler and W. John (Stuttgart 1958), col. 1744hyphenminus1752.
30. Cic. Pro Sest. 79, De Lea. 3.9 on the tribunes'
sanctity; Livy 2.33.2, 3.55.7 on offences against tribunes;
Dion. Hal. 6.89.3hyphenminus4 on specific offences against tribunes;
Dio 44.5.3, tribunician protection to Caesar against
offensive words and actions, 49.15.5 to Octavian, 49.38.1 to
Livia and Octavia. Cf. Fugier (above, n. 29), pp. 189, 225hyphenminus
226, 235, and Bauman "Tribunician Sacrosanctity" (above, n.
24), pp. 167hyphenminus168, 171.
31. Bauman, "Tribunician sacrosanctity?* (above, n. 24), p.
176. C. Koch (above, n. 29), col. 1735, 1743.
32. Winkes (above, n. 25), p. 58.
33. Th. Mommsen, Staatsrecht (Leipzig 1887) vol. 2, pp.
818hyphenminus819 n. 3; N. Purcell (above, n. 24), pp. 80, 84hyphenminus87; E.
Hohl (above, n. 24), p. 70; R. Bauman, Women and Politics
(above, n. 24), pp. 96hyphenminus97, and "Tribunician Sacrosanctity"
(above, n. 24), p. 179hyphenminus180, where he apparently contradicts
himself with respect to Livia.
34. Cic. Pro Cae. on Clodia, Pro Clu. on Sassia, Phil. 3.4,
5.22, 13.18 on Fulvia. Plut. Ti? Gracchus 8.5, Appian B.C.
1.20 on Cornelia. Purcell (above, n. 24), pp. 80, 94hyphenminus96.
35. Plut. ?upsilondieresis?. 57.
36. Plut. Ant. 26, 26.4hyphenminus27.1, 28, Lucan Phars. 10 on her
luxury. Cf. I. Becher, Das Bild der Kleopatra in der
Griechischen und Lateinischen Literatur (Berlin 1966), pp.
17hyphenminus19 on Cicero's reactions, 134hyphenminus137 on luxury. Cf. also S.
Borzsak, "Persertum und GriechischhyphenminusRomische Antike,"
Gymnasium 94 (1987), pp. 289hyphenminus297 on oriental rulers.
50
37. Plut. Ant. 29; Hor. Odes 1.37.12hyphenminus14, Prop. 3.11.30,
3.11.39, 3.11.56. Cf. I. Becher (above, n. 36), pp. 44hyphenminus45,
53hyphenminus55, 146hyphenminus147.
38. Hor. Odes 37.9hyphenminus10, Ep. 9.13hyphenminus14; Prop. 3.11.20; Dio
50.25.1hyphenminus4, 50.27.4hyphenminus7. Cf. Volkmann (above, n. 27), p. 94,
and P. Zanker Augustus und die Macht der Bilder (Munich
1990), pp. 66hyphenminus67. Prop. 3.11.9 on CleopatrahyphenminusMedea, Luc.
Phars. 360 Cleopatra bewitches the older Caesar, Dio 50.26.5
her witchcraft responsible for Antony's unhyphenminusRoman behavior,
50.5. Antony follows her among the eunuchs. Cf. also I.
Becher (above, n. 36), p. 25. Hyginus, Fab. 167 on the myth
of the castrated Dionysus. Cf. also R. Graves, The Greek
Myths (New York 1955), vol. 1, pp. 103hyphenminus104, and P. Slater,
The Glorv of Hera (Boston 1968), pp. 232, 264hyphenminus265.
39. Jos. Bell. Iud. 359, Contra Ap. 2.58, J. Ant. 15.88,
Dio 51.5.
40. G. Zecchini "II Carmen de Bello Actiaco," Historia 51
(1987), pp. 27, 60hyphenminus62, esp. p. 37: "Caratteristiche di
Cleopatra sono la presunzione e l'arroganza prima di Azio,
la codardia durante la battaglia,la finzione verso gli
Egizi, il reiterato tradimento verso Antonio, l'infida
seduzione verso Ottaviano, infine la crudelta', talora fine
a se' stessa, quando e' orinai rinchiusa in Alessandria."
41. Suet. Aug. 72, 73, 74, 76, 77 on Augustus' lack of
affectation; Pliny Nu. H. 14.8.60, 19.29.92 on Livia's diet;
Dio, 54.16.4hyphenminus5 on Livia's moderation.
42. Pliny N. H. 15.136hyphenminus137. Cf. H. Willrich (above, n.
24), p. 71hyphenminus72; Hirschfeld "Der Grundbesitz der Romischen
Kaiser," Klio 2, pp. 45hyphenminus46; S. Treggiari "Jobs in the
household of Livia," PBSR 63 (1975), pp. 48hyphenminus77, esp. pp. 52hyphenminus
53.
43. Dio 51.13.3 on Cleopatra's ploy, 55.14hyphenminus22.2 on Cinna.
Livia's reputation for mercifulness may also have been used
by Augustus and Tiberius as a convenient device, to justify
their own changes of mind and avoid creating precedents.
Dio, 58.2.3, Veil. Pat. 2.130.5 on the public recognition of
her virtue; Tac. Ann. 5.2.6 on F. Gerainus, hated by Tiberius
for currying Livia's favor, and 5.3.6 for the story that
Livia withheld the order for Agrippina's relegation.
Livia's posthumous reputation shared with Cleopatra the use
of poison and the implications of witchcraft, as examined in
chapter 7 of this study.
44. Dio 43.14.7, 43.46.1; Plut. Caes. 57.2, 60.3. Cf. Syme
(above, n. 2), pp. 301hyphenminus302.
51
45. Res Gestae 24 on the melting down of Octavian's silver
statues. Dio 53.16 on rejection of Romulus. M. Grant From
Imperium to Auctoritas (Cambridge 1946), pp. 422, 424, 442
on his distancing himself from the title imperator. P.
Zanker (above, n. 38), pp. 90-96 on Apolline symbols.
46. Dio 53.2-12, Tac. Ann. 1.2. Cf. Sattler (above, n.
20), pp. 33, 44-45, 49, and Grant (above, n. 45), p. 443.
47. Res Gestae 34, Dio 53.16, Suet. Aug. 7 on the honors
voted by the Senate and the etymology of the title. Suet.
Galba 1, Dio 48.52 on Livia's "miracle." Cf. P. Zanker
(above, n. 38), pp. 96-100, and A. Alfoldi, "Insignien und
Tracht der Romischen Kaiser," MDAI Rom. Abt. 50 (1935), pp.
11, 19-21 on Hellenistic precedents of crowns.
48. Veil. Pat. 2.88.1-3, Dio 54.15, Suet. Ajog. 19 on
Lepidus. Syme (above, n. 2) pp. 328, 368, 419-422 on
Augustus' relations with the nobiles and marriage alliances.
Chapter Two
The Mother of the Country
Understanding Livia's career requires attention to
chronology. This chapter is devoted to an examination of
Livia's position in dynastic and international politics
during the years from 27 to 2 B.C. The latter year is a
turning point marked by two significant events: the
discovery of Julia's "immorality" and her subsequent
relegation to Pandataria, and the conferment of the title of
Pater Patriae on Augustus.
Despite its aura of permanence the regime of Augustus
was weakened in these years by losses and conflicts. His
two senior advisors, Maecenas and Agrippa, both died;
Tiberius withdrew to Rhodes in anger; Julia was suspected of
subversive plans. Octavia had also died, depriving her
brother of a valuable symbol. By 2 B.C. Augustus found
himself alone at the helm, his designated heirs Gaius and
Lucius too inexperienced to be of any help.
In these years Livia's influence within the family
continued to grow, thanks to the support she gave to her
husband's policies for the moral renovation of the upper
classes. She herself contributed by personal example and
practical incentives. Her prestige was, for a while,
matched by Julia, as mother of Augustus' successors;
nevertheless, Livia's preeminence was advertised on some of
the most significant monuments of the regime. Beginnings of
52
53
her cult can be observed in the city of Rome during this
period, and she became more and more involved in diverse
forms of patronage.
In order to facilitate the examination of this period,
what follows has been divided into two parts. The first
deals with those non-official aspects of Livia's position
under the Principate, such as the monopolization of public
patronage, the moral reform, dynastic alliances and rivalry
with Julia. The second part deals with Livia's official and
unofficial position in the state.
Part 1: The Years 27 to 2 B.C.
1.1. Pax Verum Cruenta
This period marks a sustained effort on the part of
Augustus, now sole arbiter of power, to fashion a new order
based on stability and respect for tradition. Along with
this there was a sustained effort at cooperation. In the
Res Gestae Augustus reiterates the motif of coqcordia
between Senate, People and Princeps, all acting in harmony
with the institutions of the Republic and the unwritten
codes of the roos maiorum.1
One method of assuring harmony was periodical purges
of the Senate, through which Augustus disposed of the most
recalcitrant or unworthy on grounds of either poor morals or
deficient finances. In the aftermath, vacancies were filled
with adherents of Augustus, although a certain veneer of
independence was maintained in the Senate and, to an extent,
54
even encouraged. Augustus tolerated free speech more than
any of his successors. For this reason, he enjoyed a
reputation for beneficence and tolerance of behavior
considered insulting by his successors. Pollio or Labeo's
outspokenness is often cited as an example. However, as
Syme states, these two were not inclined "to advocate
assassination or provoke a civil war for the sake of a
principle." A certain opposition on the part of the Senate
was still possible, in particular when Augustus' measures
encroached upon their traditional social or economic
interests. For the period in question, we should remember
the unfriendly reception of his attempts to promote social
and moral changes through legislation in 28 B.C. and 18 B.C.
On the other hand senatorial opposition did not represent a
majority; more importantly, the nobiles were even less
inclined to accept the pre-eminence of one of their own than
that of Augustus, who enjoyed the support of the army, the
people and the knights.1
Another key motif which emerges from the Res Gestae is
that of pax, the indispensable condition for the concordia
of which Augustus boasts. The theme of pax is also
reiterated in a number of ways, stressing his achievements
as world pacifier. pax is engendered by dementia. one of
the four cardinal virtues engraved on the clipeus virtutis
donated to Augustus by the Senate.3
Despite official claims and boasts, peace was neither
55
universal nor as firmly established as Augustus would have
it appear. Tacitus defines pax as "bloody," and other
sources report civil disturbances, riots, turmoil in the
army, and occasional conspiracies. Although the information
is unclear at times, the plots hatched and discovered in
this period are, in chronological order, Murena and Caepio's
(23/22), Egnatius' (three years after Murena's, although Dio
puts it in 26 B.C.), Cinna's (16-13), and finally the
mysterious affair of Julia in 2 B.C. Other less known plots
and attempts are grouped together by Dio around the years 18
and 9 B.C. This period has been defined in retrospect as
the beginning of the new monarchy. Dio is mainly
responsible for this definition; other ancient sources
(Velleius, Suetonius, Plutarch, and even Tacitus), seem
uncertain as to the character of Augustus' peculiar rule.
Was he the last of the dictators? Or was he the second
ruler of the new monarchy (after Caesar)?4
Such uncertainty is understandable. Indications which
to modern scholars seem unmistakable signs of a new monarchy
may have appeared to contemporaries as part of a transition
between the old republican order and the establishment of a
new senatorial regime. The composition of the Senate
mirrored the changed political climate, and one senator
appeared now to have pre-eminence among others simply
because of his auctoritas and the legions he commanded on
the frontiers. The many honors, grants, decrees and
56
renewals of his office were all authorized by the Senate.
Augustus himself supported this pretense. For example,
whenever his military command was renewed he took care to be
present.*
The fact that he practically had a personal army,
composed of the legions under his command, and that he could
count on the support of the many veterans in the colonies in
every part of the Empire, who were part of his clientela.
was also not unusual to those Romans who still remembered
the years of Marius, Caesar or Pompey. Furthermore, even in
former republican times entire cities and colonies had been
under the patronage of one senatorial house or another.
Within the new family circle of Augustus, and within Rome's
tradition, the Claudii were known for their extensive
clientelae in southern Italy and in the East. Since the old
Republic was based to a large extent on unwritten rules that
responded more to relationships of interpersonal power than
to written laws, the transformation from old forms into
Augustan rule is not self-evident, but rather develops
almost imperceptibly into a system in which a genuine
republican principle?the formation of social and political
power based on personal relationships and dependencies?was
carried to extremes.' Augustus then could be seen?in fact
wanted to be seen?by his fellow-citizens as a patronus on a
very large scale, almost in the tradition of an Appius
Claudius Caecus or Marcus Livius Drusus the tribune, Livia's
57
grandfather. From 27 B.C. on, furthermore, Augustus seemed
at great pains to obliterate the memory of his former years.
He cancelled debts owed to the public treasury before
Actium, rescinded all the arbitrary and illegal decrees
issued during the Triumvirate, but above all he erased any
physical record of his former self-promotion, melting down
the many silver statues that portrayed him as the new
Alexander and using the metal for votive tripods and
candelabra, symbols of his new piety. He glossed over the
period around Actium in the Res Gestae.7 having resigned
his military title of imperator in favor of that of
Augustus, granted by the Senate.
1.2. Augustus, Father of the Country
The new title of Augustus, proposed by Munatius
Plancus, was indeed more suitable to suggest the type of
power the former Octavian now wielded over the state.
Connected with the words auguriurn, augere, auspicium,
auctoritas, "Augustus" had archaic religious overtones, and
was rich with associations that recalled Romulus, the first
to take auspicia and to interpret aucmria. activities origi-
nally included in rites promoting growth and fertility. In
fact, the statuary portraits in vogue in this period
represent Augustus preferably wearing a toga, with his head
veiled, a clear reference to his political piety and to his
program of religious revival. This type, together with the
famous Augustus of Prima Porta, in cuirass, became very
58
successful and was widely reproduced and imitated by members
of all classes.8
However, since the task of interpreting auguria and
taking auspicia^ was, at the very inception of Rome, a
prerogative of the paterfamiliasf the title of Augustus also
assumes this connotation, which becomes more explicit in 2
B.C. upon his acceptance of the new title of pater patriae.
The identification of the ruler (and his family) with the
state, begun in the years before Actium, was now complete.
The auctoritas of the August One summed up all the facets of
the most sacred forms of patriarchal power?the authority of
the greatest patron, that of a religious figure, and that of
the paterfamilias.9
These titles, suggesting a quasi-mythical past and
harking back to the very origins of Rome, mark the transi-
tion into the new order. Augustus is now the paterfamilias
of the entire community. The harmony and well-being of the
commonwealth become one with the harmony of the princeps'
family; its concordia mirrors the concordia ordinum permeat-
ing the various strata of a hierarchical society. It is not
a coincidence that the Temple of Concordia. built by Livia
as a reminder of the harmony essential to the family, was
situated in the midst of the Porticus. donated by Augustus
in her name to the people of Rome.
1.3. A City Made of Marble: Public Patronage
Augustus' exstensive building activity in these years
59
is also an extreme extension of his much promoted image of
primus inter pares. In the past, members of the upper
classes had undertaken the task of restoring or rebuilding
monuments or public facilities. The theater of Pompey, the
Aqua Claudiaf the Via Appia, the Aedes Concordiae are just a
few examples of this activity. Shortly before Actium, as
the propaganda war raged among the factions of Antony and
Octavian, the latter and Agrippa competed with Antony's
partisans in building impressive public monuments: the
temple of Apollo on the Palatine, on the grounds of
Octavian's former house, was rivalled by that built by the
Antonian Sosius, and was enriched by more sumptuous decora-
tions. Pollio's Greek and Latin library, showcasing
Antony's favorite Hellenistic masterpieces, was countered by
Agrippa's massive program of public works, financed by his
own purse, to improve Rome's obsolescent infrastructures:
the cleaning of the sewer system, reparation of the old
aqueducts and creation of new ones to ensure a plentiful
supply of fresh water to the city. After Actiura, Augustus
and members of his family participated in the massive
rebuilding and renovation of the city, eliminating gradually
the competition (i.e., senatorial or aristocratic houses not
affiliated with his own) which could not afford such large-
scale endeavors.10 The beautification of the new Rome,
made of marble, became the monopoly of Augustus' family
circle and of his adherents, each member in charge of
60
specific types of projects. Augustus reserved for himself
the improvement and creation of cultic places, temples and
fora; Agrippa was in charge of recreational grounds, baths,
public utilities (exceptionally, the Pantheon); to Livia
fell some temples and cults connected with women and the
family, the Porticus Liviae which brought relief and fresh
air to the Subura, and the Macellum Liviae, a meat market;
Octavia with her Porticus. built by Augustus in her name,
the enclosed Bibliotheca in memory of Marcellus, and a
schola. Agrippa's sister Polla was also responsible for a
Porticus Vipsania and for adorning the race courses. In
some cases, as with the Porticus Liviae and the Porticus
Octaviae, the Colonnade and Basilica of Lucius and Gaius,
and the theater of Marcellus, the monuments were built by
Augustus but named after members of his family. These were
constant reminders to the Romans both of the family and of
the person responsible for such beauty, grandeur, and order,
even when he was away from the city.
Another area in which Augustus and his family monopo-
lized public patronage was that of food distribution. The
two original forms, the frumentatio. distribution of vict-
uals on the part of the state, and the conqiarium. a gift
from the powerful to the people, were combined by Augustus,
who restricted the use to the members of his family on the
occasion of family celebrations and festivities. Livia,
Julia, Antonia and the other female members of the First
61
Family figure prominently on the lead tesserae used to
obtain food items or as tokens for access to shows and games
given in their honor or sponsored by them.11
1.4. The Moral Reform
Augustan propaganda insisted that pax and concordia had
returned to Rome in the wake of the victory of Actium; the
decadence which had ruined the Republic had been exorcised
and cleansed by the forces of Apollinian order and by the
virile discipline of the Roman/Italic people. The Penates
of Rome had triumphed over latrator Anubis and the throng of
omnigenum . . . deum monstra, the aberrations of a depraved
pantheon and of a spent culture."
This was the wishful thinking of the regime: in fact,
the foreign ways which undermined "Roman" culture continued
to exert an attraction on all classes.
One sees this in the ambivalent attitude of Romans
toward things Hellenistic and Egyptian, an ambivalence
evident even in Augustus' own circle. While the achieve-
ments of Classical Greece were valued and praised, the
Romans were proud of their empire and determined to hold on
to the virtues which?it was believed?had enabled them to
gain it. Hence the efforts by Augustus to institute moral
reform in Rome.
In 28 B.C. a series of measures was issued with regard
to Egyptian cults: their intent was to limit public display
of Egyptian cult images and their access on the part of
62
large crowds, for fear of seditious assemblies. The mea-
sures were subsequently reinforced by Agrippa's decrees in
21 B.C., which restricted such functions to areas well
outside the city walls. At the same time, Egyptian motifs
are present in decorations and wall-paintings in Roman
houses, notably those of Augustus and Agrippa; Egyptian
objects (especially obelisks) are incorporated into Augustan
monuments in Rome and Italy.13
The same guarded acceptance informs the cult of
Cybele. While horrified by its bloody excesses, the Romans
had nevertheless incorporated the goddess into their
pantheon as Magna Mater, the guarantor of victory against
Hannibal and other enemies. Virgil celebrated her as the
chief supporter of Aeneas and his people in their
tribulations; she appeared as a benevolent mother-figure who
brought victory over enemies and unruly passions. Augustus
had refurbished her temple, close to his own house on the
Palatine; not in marble, however, like most of the other
religious buildings restored in those years, but in tufa.14
The Aeneid also tried to resolve this dilemma:
inherent in the celebration of the feats of Troius Aeneas,
pietate insignis et armis. is the necessity to resolve the
conflict with the hero's obviously Eastern origin, and the
contemptuous stereotypes associated with it by Aeneas'
Italic rivals.15 Similar stereotypes had been successfully
exploited by Octavian against Antony and Cleopatra.
63
Yet, since Republican times, there had been a steady
exchange of ideas and influence between Rome and Hellenized
upper-class Easterners. Rome's politicians preferred to
deal with and incorporate local aristocracies and magnates,
favoring oligarchical systems similar to her own. Educated
Greeks and Easterners who had attached themselves to
powerful Romans were invaluable political tools, both as
ambassadors for their own communities and as mediators of
their indigenous culture to the Romans. Augustus himself
relied heavily on Easterners, some as tutors for his young
relatives and for himself, others as unofficial counsellors
and friends, using them as his own special representatives
and envoys to specific communities in Asia.1'
The last type of Hellenistic influence examined here is
that of love poetry, a more subtle but also more threatening
import, because its allure, unlike Cleopatra's, could not be
subdued by weapons. Alexandrian love poetry had been known
in Rome since 100 B.C. and had become instantly successful;
yet only Catullus had been able to transform it into a Roman
art form. Romantic love was the antithesis of Romanness, a
threat to a social and political order in which marriage
served both to forge political bonds and to produce future
citizens and leaders. Love poetry poked fun at national
characteristics such as gravitas and at institutions such as
iustum matrimonium (Catullus' poems 5 and 45 exemplify this
readily) -17
64
The diffusion of life-styles and attitudes related to
the irrationality and abandonment of Oriental cults and love
poetry was blamed for the sapping of Rome's ruling class?a
convenient excuse in troubled times, but one which seemed
supported by contrast to the relative moral health of the
rest of Italy, which had only recently been unified.
In the attempt to bring back to Rome the pristine virtues
and frugality of the Italian provincials, Augustus set to
work employing art, literature, and the example of himself
and his family, not to mention legislation and outright
force where personal example proved too subtle.1"
For a number of reasons marriage was a threatened
institution. Most commonly, and simplistically, the cause
was attributed to the emancipation of women. In reality,
the turbulent conditions at the end of the Republic had
contributed to undermine and deprive of any permanence the
type of marriage that served as political alliance, while
the proscriptions, exiles and assassinations had facilitated
the break-up of traditional family hierarchies. The
obsolescence of manus marriage may be another possible
cause. These elements combined with a new individualism,
fostered by wealth and intellectual refinement, the ultimate
result of which was an increasing distaste, on the part of
upper-class women, of child-bearing and rearing. Declining
birth-rate among the upper classes had other practical
reasons as well, in particular the immense cost of financing
65
the political career of a son or the dowry of a daughter:
both had bankrupted many noble families. In this respect,
as Hopkins pointed out, the individual woman's decision to
limit the size of her family, although possibly motivated by
desire for personal freedom, was a response to social
pressures dictated by the males in order to preserve the
socio-econoraical status of their families.19
Augustus7 desire to see the birth-rate increase in the
upper classes was partially motivated by a desire for peace,
order and a harmony such as?in his eyes and in those of his
wealthy provincial adherents?could be won by recreating the
fictitious ancient Rome of their fancy. The project,
however, was no uncharacteristically Roman Utopia but was
based on shrewd practical and strategic calculations. More
children would tie up the resources of wealthy houses,
preventing the concentration of too many resources in the
hands of rivals. On the other hand, Augustus disliked
creating too many openings for provincials.20 He also
wanted more men from the upper classes to govern his
provinces and command his armies.
His legislation thus provided rewards for those who
complied and penalties for those who did not. The rewards
applied to both members of a fruitful union, regardless of
status. Free men were advantaged in their political
careers, free women (and even freedwomen) gained release
from guardianship and permission to administer their own
66
assets. Since Augustus' main concern was to maintain the
elites, his laws penalized inter-class marriages. Thus men
of senatorial families could not marry freedwomen, actresses
or prostitutes, while senatorial women could not marry
socially inferior men, on pain of losing their social
status. Remarriage was a duty for widows, widowers and
divorced partners, the penalty being forfeiture of the right
to inherit; lack of offspring diminished this right
considerably.ai
Thus, family relations became increasingly a matter of
concern to the State, subjected to scrutiny and regulation;
consequently, private crimes and misbehavior, such as
adultery, also became State concerns. Adultery was
transformed into an offence against the State, since it
endangered the preservation of the social and political
order. It will be used in imputations against women
suspected of subversive sympathies, and against their real
or imagined accomplices.22
Informers were used for bringing charges against the
recalcitrant wealthy, and were rewarded. The opposition of
the upper classes to the moral reform meant to control and
repress them was bypassed by submitting the laws to the
approval of the Tribal Assembly. In so doing, Augustus
acted as the patron of the common people and of the agrarian
gentry of Italy.23
In protest against these restrictions some well-born
67
women registered openly as prostitutes, to escape punishment
from adultery by renouncing the privileges of their class,
or by becoming actresses, or concubines of men of lower
condition.24 Given the resistance of large segments of the
upper classes to Augustus' moral reform, it was essential
that the First Family become an exemplar of morality, a
demonstration of its value. Not only was Augustus and
Livia's marriage under scrutiny, but also those of Drusus
and Antonia, Julia and Agrippa, Tiberius and Vipsania, and
later Tiberius and Julia.
1.5. Family Alliances
In 33 or 32 B.C., at the death of Tiberius Claudius
Nero, Livia's sons came to live with their mother and
Augustus. Tiberius became almost immediately a pawn in the
game of political alliances, since he was bethroted to
Agrippa's infant daughter Vipsania. Such a match, it has
been remarked, was advantageous to both parties: to Agrippa
because, in a way very similar to Augustus', he could join
the Claudians, despite his own undistinguished origins; to
Livia, because she acquired a powerful ally and had placed
Tiberius within the innermost circle of power.25 Young
Tiberius began to appear in public at official events, as
commander of a cavalry troop of youths in the lusus Troiae
and, more importantly, riding in the celebrations for the
triumph of Actium. Despite these marks of honor and public
attention, his position was second to that of Marcellus,
68
Augustus' nephew, who was being groomed for unusually high
honors and for the succession. In 26 B.C. both boys went
with Augustus and Livia to Gaul and Spain, where they were
introduced to army life. The following year they both
returned to Rome, where Marcellus married his cousin Julia,
while Tiberius continued his political career.
Syme sees the fruits of Livia's political alliance with
Agrippa in the thwarted succession of Marcellus in 23 B.C.,
which would have prematurely uncovered the monarchical
nature of the new order. Appearances were saved by
entrusting Agrippa and Piso with the continuation of
Augustus' policies. Marcellus' unexpected death shortly
thereafter stirred suspicions against Livia, although Dio's
attribution of the death to the capital's unhealthy climate,
which had probably caused Augustus' near fatal sickness as
well, is probably closer to the facts. Octavia's excessive
mourning of her dead son, and her rather undignified
resentment against Livia on account of the brighter
prospects now open to her sons, indirectly bear evidence to
the effectiveness of the compact Livia-Agrippa.2' Octavia,
after all, could still count on her daughters to make
advantageous marriages; her extravagant grief clearly
betrays her ambition to become queen-mother.
Tiberius and Drusus reached manhood in these years and
became generals of the empire, securing the northern borders
against German tribes and defeating Pannonians. The Ara
69
Pacis. dedicated on Livia's birthday in 9 B.C., exemplifies
the spirit of the regime, which survived potentially
perilous moments at the death of Agrippa. One year later
Tiberius married Agrippa's widow Julia and became more and
more involved in his step-father's policies. After his
near-fatal sickness of 23 B.C., Augustus had devised a
scheme that would allow his regime to continue even after
his death, creating a chain of command based on pairs of
colleagues who shared power and authority. At the top was
the pair Augustus-Agrippa, with Augustus in a superior
position but with Agrippa holding roughly the same powers
(imperium maius and tribunicia potestas). Since Agrippa and
Julia had been rather prolific, their children Caius and
Lucius formed the other pair, not to be counted on for quite
some time, given their young age. Tiberius and Drusus were
therefore to occupy an intermediate position in case of
accidental deaths of the former pair. To ensure loyalty
between the colleagues and to the new order, the members of
such a compact must belong to the same family, either by
blood or matrimonial alliance, hence the necessity of a
marriage between Tiberius and Julia. This scheme can then
rightfully be defined as the "apotheosis of the family
faction."27 Despite all, Augustus was still at the helm of
the state, summing up in himself the main functions, in
particular that of supreme general and triumphator: Tiberius
and Drusus must be content with ovationes for their victo-
70
ries.
Unfortunately, this carefully conceived order was
upset once more in 9 B.C. by the sudden death of Drusus,
which made a new partnership necessary between Tiberius and
Augustus. Tiberius was granted tribunicia potestas and
jmperium proconsulare maius over the East, and the close
collaboration between the older and the younger partner
seemed to herald increased stability. The year 7 B.C.
witnessed the dedications of a number of buildings sponsored
by members of the family. The Porticus Liviae, with the
shrine of Concordia built by Livia, the Macellum under her
name, the restoration of the old Temple of Concordia by
Tiberius and Livia and its dedication in his and Drusus'
names. The illusion of concordia was, however, badly
shattered the following year, with Tiberius' abrupt
departure for his Rhodian exile, caused by his unhappiness
with Julia's personality and with her political ambitions.
Julia's friends and partisans had probably engineered a
popular demonstration demanding a ludicrously premature
consulate for Caius. Augustus felt betrayed and deserted at
a difficult time, so that not even Livia could shield
Tiberius from his anger. Her son had, to all effects,
ruined his brilliant career on account of his pride and was
to spend the next years (until A.D. 2) in an increasingly
dangerous exile, until Livia's insistent pleas secured for
him the "decorative" title of ambassador.
71
In 2 B.C. Julia's plot (euphemistically defined as
"immorality") was discovered. She was banned to Pandataria,
escorted by her mother Scribonia. The fact that her
partners in immorality belonged to old senatorial families,
that the chief culprit was Iullus Antonius, son of Antony
and Fulvia, and that Scribonia, from a powerful Pompeian
family, spent her years of exile with Julia all seem to
corroborate the idea of an aborted coup. Augustus' close-
knit family organization seemed to have fallen apart, with
the more experienced and competent Tiberius out of the game
and the two young and inexperienced princes Gaius and Lucius
as Augustus' successors. During these years Livia, though
valued by her husband as loyal wife, collaborator, and
embodiment of peculiarly Roman feminine virtues, had
nevertheless to share the spotlight with Julia, the mother
of the princes and dynastically at the centre of Augustus'
designs. It was Julia, not Livia, that was represented
alone, as Diana, and together with her sons, under Augustus'
symbol the corona civicaf on some coins and on scabbards, to
foster the loyalty of the troops.2*
1.6. Julia's Role: Daughter and Mother
Marriage to the unloved Scribonia had given Augustus
his only child, while the union with Livia had proved
fruitless. Scribonia has been stereotyped as too serious
and hard to live with, gravis femina, divorced for her morum
perversitas. because she could not tolerate the influence of
72
one of Octavian's mistresses, probably young Livia. Her
morals were impeccable, and she was a proud woman in the
tradition of her aristocratic family. Unfortunately, her
powerful family was Pompeian, and personally she had none of
the comitas that Livia displayed on similar occasions. She
was somewhat older than Octavian and had been married twice
before to men of consular rank, to whom she bore children.
One of her children was the virtuous Cornelia celebrated by
Propertius in 4.11, the other, her brother by the same
father, a consul in 16 B.C.2*
Not much is known of Scribonia after her divorce;
apparently she did not remarry, as there is no mention of
other marriages. It is not known for how long Julia lived
with her mother, since her father began to employ her very
early as an instrument of his political deals. At the age
of two she was betrothed to Antyllus, Antony and Fulvia's
son, and, after that, to a number of others. In any case,
the education Julia received under Livia's supervision must
have been unobjectionable even to Scribonia: it was strict
and extremely traditional. When Augustus' position became
solid enough to free him from serious competition, he
decided to reserve Julia, his only blood descendant, for
expressly dynastic purposes: there were other relatives,
more or less close, that could be used to tighten alliances
with prominent noble houses. Their offspring supplied him
opportunities for collateral relations to be used in turn to
73
enlarge the circle of aristocratic supporters of the re-
gime.30
Julia's task then was exclusively that of producing
heirs for Augustus' bloodline, direct successors to his
power. In this respect the republican varnish could not
disguise the monarchical intent. If Augustus and Livia's
union had been fruitful, the offspring would have combined
the two branches of the family, possibly in a more
harmonious union. The Claudians eventually became Julians
(cf. Drusus' burial in Augustus7 mausoleum), through
marriages and elaborate adoptions, although not always
harmoniously. Lacking a direct descendant of Augustus and
Livia, Julia's marriage to Marcellus would consolidate the
Julian line. Failing this, Agrippa, the second-in-command,
finally provided the needed heirs; for the purpose, he had
been compelled to divorce his previous wife Marcella, cousin
of Julia. This had not been an uncommon practice even in
the past, and yet Agrippa was being drawn closer and closer
to the First Family at every successive marriage. The
intention was clear: to establish a dynasty.
Having finally fulfilled her mission, Julia obtained
due public recognition. After the adoption of her two sons
by Augustus in 17 B.C., her image appears on commemorative
coins which represent her and her sons on the reverse, with
Augustus on the obverse. A civic crown hovers over her head
to indicate her direct descent from Augustus, while on other
74
issues she appears as Diana, sister of Apollo, celebrated in
the Carmen Saeculare as guarantor of fertility. Julia and
her sons are reproduced also on scabbards, probably
following Gaius and Lucius' presentation to the array of the
Rhine. She is the first woman under the Principate to
appear on coins,31 and during these golden years her imporhyphenminus
tance surpasses that of Livia in some respects.
1.7. Livia and Julia
Archeological evidence attests to Augustus' desire to
unite his wife and his daughter in artistic representations
and in public honors; recently restored wall decorations in
Agrippa's villa at Boscotrecase show portrait medallions of
Livia and Julia. They also appear in symmetrical position
on the walls of the Ara Pacis. There are instances of
shared cult and honors in the East, after Julia's visit with
Agrippa, from 16 to 13 B.C. In Athens Julia and Livia share
a priestess and the temple of Hestia, in Thasos they are
honored as "benefactresses"(epsilonnuepsilonrhogammaepsilontonos tau epsilonsigma1), but Livia is also
styled "goddess" (thetaepsilonalphatonos), whereas Julia is not. On Pergamene
coins, Livia appears on the obverse as Hera, Julia on the
reverse as Aphrodite. Among the inscriptions that celebrate
Julia, one from Priene praises her as "she of the beautiful
children" (kappaalphalambdalambdaiotatauepsilonkappanuomicronsigma1) without any mention of her husband
Agrippa." This compliment to Julia's fertility, example
of Augustus' marriage legislation, recalls her comparison
with Diana in the abovehyphenminusmentioned Roman coins, since Diana
75
protected the young and was associated with childbearing and
birth.
Livia was also associated with a divinity promoting
fertility and abundance, Ceres. At first sight this seems
redundant, as both Ceres and Diana protected birth,
nurturing, fertility of the land and of marriage. Probably
the difference lay in the dynastic implications of Diana,
given her close association with Apollo, Augustus' tutelary
god, and in the ideological purpose that each goddess
fulfilled. As female counterpart of Apollo, Diana had
helped Octavian to defeat Sextus Pompey at Naulochus. For
this reason, the cultic representations of Diana and Apollo,
previously extraneous to Italic tradition, intensify after
Actium.
There may also be a suggestion of family devotion,
since both Augustus' mother and the Octavii originated from
the area around Nemi, seat of Diana's ancient cult. In her
lunar aspect she complemented Apollo in assisting the growth
of crops and the gestation of humans and animals, while
their alternate rising and setting signifies the eternity of
time and nature. In this added sense Julia, Augustus' only
child, was complementary to him because she supplied the
successors to continue his policies and augment the power of
Rome. Ceres, on the other hand, was identified with Tellus,
and refers to the fertility of the earth, brought about by
the Pax Augusta, as suggested by the reliefs of the Ara
76
Pacis. Politically Ceres was a divinity closely associated
with the plebs of Rome and with the origins of the
Tribunate, the power of which had been transferred to
Augustus.33 Therefore Livia and Julia, with their honorary
titles and representations, reiterated the connection
between Augustus' family, Actium, and the plebs.
1.8. Scribonians vs. Livians
Julia's position in the dynasty was intended to be
passive and iconic: yet she was a woman of remarkable charm,
wit and culture, extremely proud of her origins, both
because of her father's achievements and because of
Scribonia's ancestry and personality. She eventually felt
that her position, although high, was devoid of any real
challenge or responsibility other than producing heirs to
the regime. Her new marriage to the conservative and
intense Tiberius was unhappy; she regarded him as an
inferior and he, on his part, found her political ambition
as distasteful as her morals.34
A pervasive tendency of past scholarship to focus on
Augustus and his accomplishments has neglected the influence
and contributions of his associates, at the very best making
concessions to the achievements of his male associates. The
influence of his women, weighty in some cases, but mostly
unofficial, has not been properly acknowledged, except where
that influence was negative.
At this time Augustus' entourage was split into three
77
groups, centered around the principes feminae Livia, Julia
and Antonia. Livia and Antonia had much in common and lived
in agreement. Livia and Julia's entourages, on the other
hand, were antithetical, and supplied a show within the show
at public occasions. Their differences were clearly dis-
cernible, not only superficially, in the stark contrast
between the older, dignified generation and the merry crowd
of young intellectual hedonists, but also ideologically.35
Julia and her children were extremely popular with the
urban crowds, which could be harnessed into demanding Gaius'
accession to the consulate at a ridiculously early age. The
able Tiberius on the other hand, for all his proven ability
as a general and administrator, lacked the charm and the
charisma to make a favorable impact on the populace, which
he intensely despised. Had the opportunity arisen, Julia
and her group, with their strong appeal to the urban masses,
might have instituted an alliance with the people that
totally bypassed the Senate. Tiberius' adherents, by con-
trast, were a mixed batch, some distinguished (Cnaeus
Calpurnius Piso, Antistius Veto) others less so, military
men and proteges of Livia (Sulpicius Galba, Marcus Salvius
Otho, Marcus Plautius Silvanus, son of Livia's friend
Urgulania) .3*
The ideological antagonism between the two groups was
exacerbated by the personal disagreements between Tiberius
and Julia. Such rivalry has been defined for a long time as
78
Claudians against Julians. B. Levick, however, has suggest-
ed a different alignment, Scribonians against Livians, which
more accurately points to the struggle for power between
descendants of Scribonia (Julia, Gaius and Lucius) and those
of Livia (Tiberius). This new definition of the conflicting
groups seems more appropriate because, as mentioned above,
the Claudian element had somewhat ceased to exist as a
separate entity, incorporated into the Julian by marriage
(Drusus and Antonia, Tiberius and Julia). Furthermore the
Claudians?unlike other aristocrats?were loyal supporters
of the regime. The frictions within the family seem to have
stemmed from a number of factors, including Julia's desire
to play a more active role in the dynasty, Tiberius' resent-
ment at the various accommodations demanded from him,
combined with his dislike of Julia's ambition. Scribonia's
fear of seeing the son of her rival Livia supplant her
grandchildren Gaius and Lucius may also have been in-
volved.37
Tiberius' departure at the height of his career meant
a victory for the "Scribonians." Livia was distressed over
Tiberius' hasty decision: his followers were not a
homogeneous group she could organize into a faction, and she
had no close kin left. All she could do for her son at the
moment was to bide her time and eventually convince Augustus
to confer on him the title of ambassador to cover up the
shame.
79
If Livia's faction was without a leader, Julia's could
count only on the favor of the populace of Rome. The family
names of her allies were impressive, but they did not seem
to have had any following in the army, their movement being
completely "urban." Julia's chief accomplices belonged to a
group of interrelated patrician families whose members were
to be involved later in the catastrophe of her daughter, the
Younger Julia.38 Scribonia was probably a supporter of the
group, backing her daughter all along and not only during
the years of her exile. She continued to do so even after
Julia's death and that of her granddaughter: we find her
again, an old lady, advising her great-nephew Scribonius
Libo Drusus, charged in plotting against Tiberius.39
1.9. A Political Crime
The destiny of Julia has supplied material for academ-
ic arguments, still ongoing, concerning the "plot" versus
"immorality" theories. In recent years the political nature
of her transgressions has been re-examined, with many schol-
ars being won over to the "plot" theory. For over a century
most theories made Livia responsible for the fall of Julia,
even though the available ancient evidence disproves it.
Tiberius had nothing to gain from Julia's disgrace, indeed
he had a lot to fear, as Suetonius points out. Although he
might have viewed the events with a certain satisfaction,
political considerations dictated that he make a show of
graciousness and mercy, interceding on her behalf with
80
Augustus. Julia's father had divorced her on Tiberius'
behalf, and one can only imagine how reluctantly the exiled
prince would have severed the only means that afforded him
some protection from his adversaries.40 Despite the fall
of their mother, Gaius and Lucius still remained Augustus'
heirs and were now dispatched to their posts of command with
the armies. Gaius was sent to the East, so that henceforth
Tiberius' life depended on his good will; Gaius, however,
was surrounded by counsellors and retainers hostile to
Tiberius.
The discovery of Julia's improprieties and of a
presumed plot had ended with the relegation of Julia and of
most of her accomplices and with the death of Julius
Antonius, an exception to Augustus' vaunted dementia.
Julius was one of the major culprits, suspected of
monarchical designs on the basis of his family background.
The conjectures on the possible implications of the
relationship between an Antonius and a highly-placed lady
were very suggestive of a still recent past. The suggestion
of a plot is reinforced by Augustus' decision to exile
Julius' young son to Marseille under the pretext of
furthering his studies, as well as the decision to allow the
child of Sempronius Gracchus, another instigator of Julia,
to accompany his father into exile.41
Should one wish to discount the existence of a full-
fledged conspiracy, given that the sources are vague in this
81
respect, Julia's crime still retained a political character,
and as such it demanded public and exemplary punishment, it
has been observed that Julia becomes, in one of Augustus'
memorable sayings, a metaphor of the state. As one of the
principes feminae and daughter of the pater Patriae, Julia's
duty was to embody the highest moral standards and to set an
example for the ladies. Together with Livia, Octavia and
Antonia, she was to promote the new moral climate
established by her father's laws and celebrated in the
fanfare of the Secular Games. This was not an unimportant
task, since the Princeps' family set the trend in many ways.
It was a daunting task, as high society in the capital had
demonstrated a definite aversion to moral reform. Julia's
education had stressed the traditional and anachronistic
role of the matrona. with the consequent duty to be
exemplary, to transmit and reinforce the mos maiorum. Since
her actions and words would be on record, subjected to the
scrutiny of present and future generations, there should be
no room for the personal, private and unconventional. In
exchange for this unconditional surrender of body and soul
to the dynasty and the state, she obtained the highest
honors, almost overshadowing Livia.42
Given this frame of reference, Julia's immorality,
suggested by her famous jokes, transcended the limits of
family disgrace. It became a public threat, an open
incitement to disregard all that Augustus, Livia and the
82
regime stood for, a suggestion of hypocrisy. In short, it
was an invitation to subversion. Instead of the domestic
and civic virtue of Lucretia, a foil to tyranny, ultimately
responsible for the creation of the Republic, Julia the
matrona tried to rid herself of her husband and might have
planned eventually to set up her lover as ruler. Her own
whim would be the only law, luxury and licence the rule with
the approval of the mob (a comparison with Cato's speech on
the repeal of the Oppian law comes to mind). This is at
least the interpretation that can be extrapolated from the
scanty and obscure references to Julia. Her main failing
was, according to Velleius, to believe herself above the
law, or to be a law unto herself (luxuria libidineve
infectum reliquit magnitudinemque fortunae suae peccandi
licentia metiebatur, quidquid liberet pro licito vindicans).
She was thus guilty of tyrannical hybris, not simply of
feminine arrogance and lack of restraint, since luxuria and
libido are also characteristics of the tyrant.43
Enumerating the calamities that beset Augustus, Pliny
the Elder explicitly mentions the word parricida (consilia
parricidae palam facta), which clearly refers to the person
who commits or plots the action. Its vicinity to the words
adulterium filiae and the context in which it appears, the
family disgraces of Augustus, make it very probable that
parricida may refer either to Julia or to Julius. At any
rate, whether one translates it at face value as
83
"parricide," with reference to the person who commits the
crime, or, following Ferrill,44 chooses to take it as
"assassination of a head of state" as a general reference to
the many conspiracies (or supposed conspiracies) of those
years, the context links Julia's fate with subversive de-
signs. A well-born, traditionally educated lady and her
lover(s) aim at undermining a strongly patriarchal regime
based on the restored mos maiorum. These scattered refer-
ences combine to give the composite picture of a woman who,
like the Sallustian Sempronia, had the advantages of birth,
husband, children and wealth, was well-read and personally
very charming, but also dissolute. The same description
could apply to the Cleopatra of literary tradition. The at-
tempts to get rid of Tiberius and the supposed parricidium.
on the other hand, are reminiscent of the story of Tullia,
daughter of king Servius, narrated by Livy.
The woman's moral turpitude becomes then a metaphor for
the rejection of the patriarchal social order in favor of
res novae, revolution. In fact, even a model of chastity
like Agrippina the Elder was posthumously accused of
adultery by Tiberius; as Tacitus remarked, quia occupandae
rei publicae araui non poterat. Yet, aside from Pliny's
remarks, there are no indications that Julia's subversive
plans included anything substantial, i.e., bribing the army
or the praetorian guard. Her adherents were urban patrician
intellectuals, not a solid base of power; as for the city
84
masses, their support was not enough to cause a revolution.
Despite these considerations, as Bauman points out, Julia's
behavior could undermine Augustus' reformist efforts and, in
this respect, she could be seen as a parricida. This claim
seems supported by the chronology of the incident, which
took place in 2 B.C., the year in which Augustus received
the title of pater patriae. It is not known whether the
conferment of the title preceded the scandal or vice versa:
at any rate, it influenced Augustus' harsh reprisal against
his daughter. We may even speculate that, since the same
title was granted to the early Brutus after he oversaw his
own sons' death for treason, the honor to Augustus may have
been intended to soften the blow of Julia's condemnation.45
Julia's exile did not seem to change things
substantially for Livia's son, but Livia herself now had
sole access to her husband. Octavia had died in 11 B.C.,
embittered and aloof because of the death of Marcellus.
Antonia, the widow of Drusus, chose not to remarry and
remained instead in the house of Livia, with whom she had
established a friendly relationship. Agrippa and Maecenas,
whose counsel Augustus had valued, also died, the first in
12 B.C., the second in 8 B.C.. Aside from the young Gaius
and Lucius, the patriarch had no close relatives to help and
advise him. Livia was now his sole counsel.
85
Part 2: Livia's Official and Unofficial Position
2.1. The patron of marriage, motherhood and children
Livia's influence as Augustus' unofficial advisor was
not officially publicized. This would have ruined the image
of the archetypal Roman family. Furthermore,
Octavian's propaganda against Antony had magnified the
influence of two political women, Fulvia and Cleopatra; now
Augustus could make himself vulnerable to similar criticism.
Nevertheless, because of the lack of a clear demarcation
between public and private in Roman political life, it was
still possible for Livia to exercise her remarkable
influence and intelligence to shape the ideology of the new
regime while avoiding offense to Roman male sensitivities.
In fact, she was praised as the mirror of wifely virtues.
By financing with Augustus the lavish gladiatorial games and
entertainments given by Tiberius at his coming of age, Livia
made a tentative inroad into male territory.
More important on the symbolic level?even if largely
unnoticed?was Livia's participation by proxy in the
family's triumphs. The laurel branches adorning the victors
came from one of her estates, as well as the boughs adorning
Augustus' doorposts. From her villa at Prima Porta came
also a statue of Augustus which became a model for subse-
quent portraits; its artistic vocabulary displays subtle
political and ideological messages and allusions. The
apparent incongruity of the bare feet in a martial portrait
86
are a reference to heroic and divine nakedness, a disguised
allusion to Augustus' divinity, while the elaborate reliefs
on the breastplate refer to Tiberius' Parthian successes.
Because of the latter element, the statue of Prima Porta can
be dated before Tiberius' retreat to Rhodes and may have
been an indirect but pointed reminder of Tiberius' services
to Augustus who was debating the succession."
Despite the apparent unobtrusiveness, Livia's power was
well known throughout the Empire; her help was sought
equally by private individuals from Gaul and by kings from
the East. Indicative of the widespread reverence and
gratitude she inspired is, in this respect, Dio's mention of
the posthumous honors accorded her by the Senate.47 The
passage in question broadly defines the fields officially
recognized as Livia's sphere of action?the patronage of
women and children and her work as mediator and pacifier.
Livia's public role may seem a mere extension of her
domestic one as matchmaker and official supervisor over the
education of the First Family's many children. To regard it
as secondary with respect to the role of Augustus, Agrippa
or Tiberius, would be a mistake.
Livia's high position in the family hierarchy is
clearly visible in the procession of Augustus' relatives on
the Ara Pacis; she appears on the southern side, the more
important, and follows immediately after Agrippa and Gaius
Caesar, the first family members after the Princeps and the
87
priests in charge of the sacrifices. Behind her come
Tiberius, Drusus and Antonia with the little Germanicus,
followed by other family members. Julia does not appear on
this side of the Ara, but on the northern side; she is in a
position symmetrical to that of Livia, while Lucius Caesar
is symmetrical to his brother. The scene represented here
seems to refer to the inauguration (13 B.C.) preliminary to
the construction of the edifice, as Augustus is portrayed in
his quality of augur, burning incense from a little box
carried by an attendant.48
The dedication of the altar took place in 9 B.C. on
January 30th, Livia's birthday. The year should have been
full of personal satisfaction for her, since both her sons
received ovationes for their victories in the North.
Instead, Drusus died suddenly owing to an accident. The
population of Rome shared in her grief, and the Senate
granted her the ius trium liberorum, further freedom from
patrimonial tutela. Her behavior on this occasion was
worthy of a mother of the old days, her grief dignified and
restrained, unlike the despair and bitterness shown by
Octavia at the death of her son. Probably for this reason,
and for her concern for Drusus' family, the Senate granted
her the right to erect a number of statues.
Within the First Family, Livia had arranged the
marriages of both her sons, placing them in key positions of
authority: Tiberius as a son-in-law of Agrippa, Drusus of
88
Octavia. Both marriages were happy while they lasted. She
also organized, probably in cooperation with Antonia, other
matches involving close and distant relatives and friends of
Augustus: Germanicus and Agrippina, Livilla and Gaius Caesar
first, Drusus later, Aemilia Lepida and Lucius Caesar first,
then Claudius, Claudius and Livia Medullina, then Claudius
and Urgulanilla.
As a direct consequence of her involvement in dynastic
marriages within the family, and as a sign of her agreement
with her husband's legislation on marriage, Livia's public
sphere of action entailed the "glamorization" of family
life. Of chief importance here was the reinforcement of the
position of the materfamilias through the rediscovery of
ancient cults centered on women's lives and the restoration
of the temples in which they were practiced. Livia also
supplied practical incentives to effect the changes her
husband's legislation was trying to promote.
The most important prerequisite in a Roman marriage was
that it had to be a digna condicio, in which the partners
were equal in social standing (pares), since an unequal
marriage would demote the socially superior partner. A rich
dowry was deemed indispensable for this purpose, especially
in the upper classes, where it was frequently used to boost
the husband's political career, as well as for the
maintenance of a rich wife's lifestyle. In the lower
classes a dowry was also important, since it represented a
89
wife's means of survival in the event of divorce and it made
remarriage possible; even slave women sought to acquire one.
Many senatorial families, as discussed above, had become
impoverished because of proscriptions or career-related
expenses, which made it impossible for them to pay high
dowries for suitable matches. Since Augustus' marriage
policies targeted in particular the senatorial and
equestrian classes, Livia's subventions to "poor" girls in
these classes assume vital importance. That she became
official protectress of marriage is indicated not only by
her cultic association with Juno, Vesta, Ceres, but also by
the fact that in Egypt, as late as Hadrian's times, marriage
contracts took place before a statue or an image of her.4'
Later this position was assumed by Faustina, wife of Marcus
Aurelius, on account of her fertility.
Supplying dowries for needy girls had been mostly an
act of individual charity in Rome. The existing data are
not exhaustive, but it seems that in some parts of the Greek
world, at least, such programs had been more or less
sporadically available. In some places (Thasos, Rhodes) the
dowries benefited the daughters of men fallen in war,
especially in times when there was a shortage of women-
citizens. In Hellenistic times, Queen Laodice III had
distinguished herself in this field, setting up in Iasos a
fund for the purpose of supplying dowries to girls.
Previously, another Hellenistic queen, Phila, wife of
90
Deraetrios Poliorcetes, had also provided dowries for sisters
and daughters of the poor. Livia may or may not have had
previous knowledge of this: perhaps in her case it seemed an
appropriate form of patronage for an important woman. We
know from Dio that, supposedly after Augustus' death, she
used to hold public audiences at her house, and that they
were less selective than those held by Augustus, since she
received both members of the Senate and private citizens.
On those occasions she may well have decided to help
individuals to pay dowries or to support their children. As
for rearing the children of many, it is not clear whether
Dio refers to alimenta, food subsidies for poor children,
which depended on acts of individual charity. Augustus
himself had provided some relief, and Livia was probably
both reinforcing his example and providing some of her own
as patron of family life for the whole state. Her example
seems to have been followed by some, but the activity itself
was not organized as a state program until the end of the
first century A.D.50
Livia, Octavia and Antonia were also entrusted with
the education of the children of foreign kings and princes,
sent to Rome either as hostages or guests. Juba of
Mauretania grew up in Octavia's house and eventually married
Cleopatra's daughter Cleopatra Selene, also raised by
Octavia. Herod Agrippa, grandson of Livia's friend Salome,
was also educated at Rome, probably in Antonia's house,
91
given the friendship between Antonia and his mother
Berenice; he grew up with Claudius and was friend and
companion of Drusus and Caligula. The Herodian princes
Aristobulos and Alexander were also educated in the same
circles, and possibly even Arminius, who was among Gaius'
retinue when the latter was introduced to the Rhine legions
and later on in the East, in A-D. 2.51
Finally Vonones, installed by Augustus on the Parthian
throne, soon became unpopular thanks to his Romanized
attitudes. Thus, while carrying out activities perfectly
appropriate to Roman matrons, Livia and her associates
influenced both domestic and international politics in
support of their male kin's activities.
2.2. Livia's restoration projects
Connected to the patronage of marriage and children was
Livia's activity as a builder, restorer and dedicator. Some
edifices were financed completely by her, others by her
husband in her name. The buildings she commissioned or
restored with her own money are the Temple of Concordia in
the Porticus Liviae, the Temple of Bona Dea Subsaxana, and
the Temple of Fortuna Muliebris. It is also possible that
she restored a Temple to Pudicitia Plebeia. The dedication
of the Temple of Concordia was performed by Livia alone in 7
B.C. on June 11th, during the festival of the Matralia in
honor of the old Italic goddess Mater Matuta. protectress of
women and children, whose rites centered on childbearing and
92
nursing. The emphasis on family, children and married life
was strengthened by the chronological inclusion of the
Matralia within the festival of the Vestalia. the rites of
which were also performed exclusively by married women. The
dedication of the shrine of Concordia during this period is
therefore meant to emphasize above all the essential quality
for a happy marriage, and to implicitly remind women that it
was their task to create the conditions for it within the
family, much as Livia herself did, by her facilitas
(indulgence to Augustus' affairs) and comitas (graciousness,
kindness), in addition to her scrupulous chastity.
The year 7 B.C., when this shrine was dedicated, was
not marked by concordia within the First Family; in fact, it
was marred by Tiberius' sudden departure for Rhodes. Thus,
the internal dissensions of the ruling family have been used
as an argument against the interpretation just discussed.
In my opinion, the discordant situation within Augustus'
family perhaps made the advertising of concordia even more
necessary and, although it adds to the significance of the
event, should not be regarded as the prime motive for the
creation of the shrine. More recently, C. J. Simpson has
argued that, contrary to the popular view expressed above,
the temple in question was instead the Aedes Concordiae in
the Forum, restored by Livia?who was present at the ceremo-
ny of re-inauguration in January?on the occasion of
Tiberius' German triumph in 7 B.C." Flory and Simpson's
93
views are not necessarily opposed. Nothing prevents us from
accepting Dio's statement about the presence of a shrine in
the Porticus Liviae, while on the other hand recognizing the
validity of Simpson's evidence. Both events emphasize
Livia's role as straddling "the frontier between domestic
and public, between affairs of state and of the family."
This "remarkably nuanced zone of transition," as Purcell
remarked, was the area in which the women of the ruling
house, especially Livia, operated.
The restoration of the Temple of Bona Dea Subsaxana by
Livia was celebrated by Ovid in the Fasti. She is praised
for actively imitating her husband (ne non imitata maritum
esset./et est omni parte secuta viro 5.157-158), where omni
parte stresses her total adherence to his program and
conscious imitation of his policies. The restoration of
this shrine had additional value for Livia in terms of her
own family history, since its foundation was attributed by
some to a Claudia who was a Vestal Virgin. Like Ceres, Bona
Dea was a divinity protecting crops and women's lives, and
was also in charge of healing. At her temple were kept a
few sacred snakes, used for healing practices, and the
priests functioned also as apothecaries, preparing medicines
out of herbs. As Augustus had always been sickly and needed
special care, Livia may well have become expert at
administering medications and preparing them, an ability
probably exploited by her adversaries in fabricating rumors
94
about poisons.53
The Temple of Fortuna Muliebris also attracted Livia's
interest because it commemorated the action of matrons as
peace-makers, and because its rites emphasized chastity:
only newly-wed women and women with a single husband could
approach and touch the statue of the goddess. Other
edifices carried her name, even if built by Augustus,
including the Porticus Liviae and the Macellum. Unlike the
shrines built and restored by Livia, these structures had
utilitarian purposes and were open to all segments of the
population, not only to women. They were a gift of the
Princeps and his wife to the people, particularly to those
who could not afford to relax in private country estates and
villas. The choice of the location of this Porticus is
especially interesting, since it was raised on the grounds
of the former estate of Vedius Pollio, a disreputable friend
and supporter of Augustus. At his death in 15 B.C., Vedius
had left his enormous and sumptuous house to the Princeps,
perhaps expecting some form of posthumous monumental
commemoration. Instead, Augustus tore down the entire
complex and, in due time, had the Porticus built in its
place, not in memory of a dead supporter who had been an
embarrassment because of his luxury and proverbial cruelty,
but to honor his most trustworthy collaborator, Livia, whose
virtues countered Pollio's vices. The Porticus was adorned
with works of art and shaded by vines, with the shrine of
95
Concordia presumably in the middle; both structures carried
a strong propagandistic message, the Porticus against
selfish and useless luxury, the shrine in favor of a stable
and harmonious married life based on the virtues of the
wife.94
The concept of the Porticus as a gift to the city and
piece of self-advertisement must have appealed to women,
since a similar structure, the Porticus of Eumachia, was
donated by a wealthy benefactress to the city of Pompeii.
The building was dedicated to Concordia and Pietas Augusta,
two divinities associated with Livia: in imitation of
Livia's complex, this porticus too was enriched with
colonnades, statuary, marble doors decorated with vines,
probably an allusion to those which shaded Livia's. It is
fair to assume that Eumachia was present in effigy, probably
a statue modeled on those of Livia as matrona stolata.
At Thugga in North Africa a freedwoman turned patroness
built with her own money a small shrine with porticus to
Ceres Augusta, and a temple to Concordia and Venus, and
dedicated them in her quality of flaminica perpetua. It is
possible that the temple was devoted to Ceres and Concordia
as tutelary divinities of Roman Carthage, in whose district
Thugga was located. However, it is also possible that this
wealthy freedwoman was trying to imitate Livia, since Livia
was associated with Venus-Aphrodite in many areas of the
Mediterranean and had dedicated her own shrine to Concordia.
96
The assumption of a reference to Livia seems supported by
another inscription on a temple to Tiberius restored by the
freedwoman's husband,55 which would date these works within
the first century A.D.
2.3. Personal and Civic Patronage
Besides the large-scale forms of patronage mentioned
above, Livia actively advanced or initiated the careers of a
few individuals whose descendants became famous later on.
The grandfather of the emperor Otho was raised in Livia's
house and became senator thanks to her support; the future
emperor Galba, stepson to a distant relation (Livia
Ocellina), was one of her favorites and received a lavish
inheritance. Even if he was denied the use of it by
Tiberius, he cherished her memory, issuing commemorative
coinage in her name during his brief rule, also in order to
legitimate his position. Afranius Burrus, prefect of the
guard under Nero, had started his career as supervisor of
Livia's estates. Fufius Geminus was another special
favorite of hers, and as such had to put up with Tiberius'
malevolence: he was consul in the year of her death."
One of the results of Livia's trip to the East with
Augustus from 22 to 19 B.C. was her personal acquaintance
with local kings and queens. Dynamis of Pontus consecrated
a statue to Livia in the temple of Aphrodite, either in
thanksgiving for her patronage or in expectation of it. The
dedication refers to Livia as benefactress and may imply
97
that she used her influence in favor of Dynamis as ruler of
Bosphorus, where a town was named Liviopolis in her
honor.S7
Since Augustus' policy was to preserve the existing
friendly dynasties, connecting them to one another by means
of marriage, Livia must have helped to smooth difficulties
and to promote politically advantageous alliances, using her
powers of persuasion and her reputation as patroness of
marriage. This mixing of personal and political amicitiaf
of private emotions and public duty is evident in the case
of Livia's great friend Alexandra Salome, sister of Herod of
Judea. Livia persuaded her friend to submit to the reason-
of-state, and marry the decrepit and dignified Jew who was
her brother's candidate, instead of the young and
unscrupulous minister of an Arab king.58 The episode
confirms Livia's authority on the international scene:
Salome's affair and marriage were not just "women's
matters," but could have had political repercussions. Herod
and his sister do not turn to Livia only as a friend, but
also as an arbiter in an embarrassing and potentially
dangerous family drama with diplomatic implications. As a
true arbiter Livia ruled in favor of cold but advantageous
politics, regardless of her friend's emotions, stressing the
sacrifices necessary to ensure stability in the family and
kingdom.
There is ample evidence of the unusually warm
98
relations between the ruling house of Judea and Augustus'
family; Livia intervened to save not only Salome's
reputation, but also her life, when she discovered a plot
against her by Antipater, the heir to the throne, and Acme,
her own Jewish secretary. Livia's relationship with Salome,
however warm on the personal level, was not one between
equals, but rather one of patronage, since Livia occupied a
higher position. Salome, on her part, demonstrated her
gratitude by bequeathing to Livia a sumptuous inheritance?
the cities of Jamnia, Archelais and Phasaelis, famous for
its palm groves and dates, which gave Livia a profit of 60
talents per year. The village of Bethramphtha became a town
named Livias first, then Julias; Livia, on the other hand,
in 10 B.C. contributed heftily to the expenses for the
penteteric games given by Herod to inaugurate the new port-
town of Caesarea. Livia and Augustus, as a sign of their
deep appreciation of Herod, sent gifts to the temple in
Jerusalem. The existence of ties of patronage between the
two women, as well as friendship, seems supported by a
comparison between the legacies of Salome and of Herod. At
the death of Herod, Livia received the sum of 500 talents;
Herod's bequest did not make any special distinction for
Livia, as she received the same amount as other members of
the family except Augustus.**
Cities and communities also benefited from Livia's
patronage. Sparta was rewarded with the island of Cythera
99
for the assistance given to Livia in her flight from the
Triumvir Octavian, and its famous public repast was graced
by the presence of Augustus himself. Samos apparently
enlisted Livia's advocacy, and Augustus professed himself
willing to satisfy her entreaties, although not to the point
of contradicting his habits. This resembles the case of
Livia's Gaulish client, to whom Augustus denied citizenship
but granted exemption from tribute. Greek inscriptions
praise Livia as benefactress, although the nature of her
benefactions is not known, since the dedications are usually
vague.so
Finally, another form of activity connected to civic
patronage is the offering of public banquets on the occasion
of special events related to the family of the benefactor.
Livia offered such banquets on at least two occasions, one
to celebrate Tiberius' Pannonian victories in 9 B.C. when
she and Julia entertained the women of Rome at their
expense, the other after Tiberius' dedication of the Temple
of Concordia in 7 B.C. A similar event was in program to
celebrate Drusus' ovatio, but the festivities were cut short
by his premature death. That the banquets in question must
have been offered to all the women of Rome, not just to the
members of the upper classes, can be inferred from Dio's
statement about Tiberius' part in the same event; he is said
to have feasted some of the people on the Capitol, others in
other parts of the city. Such forms of public magnificence
100
had their roots in Roman religious tradition, the
lectisternia and sellisterniaf associations with the gods,
which were geared to promote good-will and reconciliation
among the people. They could also be used in the same way
as public spectacles and games to boost one's reputation and
popularity, particularly with the lower classes, who always
appreciated a free meal. As such, they were employed by
Augustus' regime to strengthen the bond between the people
and his family.*1
2.4. Honors and the Beginnings of Livia's Cult
During these years Livia received relatively few new
official honors in Rome, despite the great increase in her
influence both within the family circle and in public life.
This is probably due to the fact that she did not yet have
an official position, such as she would have later as Mother
of the Successor or Priestess of Augustus. Nevertheless,
the dedication of the Ara Pacis on her birthday in 9 B.C.
has great symbolic significance, proclaiming to the public
her closeness to her husband's regime. In the same year she
received the ius trium liberorum from the Senate and more
statues as a token of sympathy at Drusus' death.
Between 27 and 2 B.C., however, it is possible to see
her cult begin to emerge in Rome in the form of the cult of
her Juno. This manner of devotion was private and servile
in character, as originally it was supposed to complement
that of the Genius of the paterfamilias, practiced by slaves
101
and members of each household. The antiquity of the cult of
the Juno is disputed, and it is less well attested to than
that of the Genius; the formula in the ritual of the
Arvales, Juno Deae Diae. often quoted as proof of its
antiquity, may be due to Augustan innovations. In fact, the
principate rediscovered and revived ancient and obsolescent
rituals, giving some of them a more archaic patina by adding
modern elements. The first literary mention of a
woman's individual Juno is to be found in Tibullus,
contemporary of Augustus, and more allusions follow. As for
the epigraphical records, the relatively abundant number of
available inscriptions seems to belong to the more recent
past, some specifically in connection with Livia's cult.
The interesting fact is that the woman's personal Juno gains
importance under Augustus, as a complement to the man's
ius at a time in which the cult of the Princeps' own
intrudes on that of the family Lares. Likewise,
images of Livia have been found in lararia of private
dwellings in Naples, Pompeii, Lyons.62
As mentioned above, the attention paid to the
individual J_uno, along with swearing by her, sets this cult
in the context of slave religious and private practice; in
Tibullus' Eleg. 3.19.15 service to a mistress is implied.
Particularly significant in this respect is an altar from
vicus Sandaliarius in Rome, an area situated in the Subura.
Chronologically, this piece of evidence belongs to the
102
period examined, since it is dated 2 B.C. The altar,
dedicated by four freedmen, the maqistri, to the Genius
Augusti and the Lares r is unusual in a number of ways. For
our purposes, the most noteworthy characteristic is the
triad in the front, not the Genius and Lares expected, but
the Genius Auqusti. that of Gaius Caesar and a female
personage identified by Gross as Livia, or rather the Juno
of Livia. The bare feet and the diadem indicate that the
woman is a divinity of unclear identity; she wears a torque
around her neck like Venus Genetrix, but in her hands she
holds a sacrificial cup and a small incense box, and on one
of her arms she wears a snake bracelet. Cup and snake are
accessories of Bona Dea, also identified with Salus;
sometimes the variation has a cornucopia instead of the cup.
Livia, as restorer of the temple of Bona Dea, was associated
with her and Salus, although the coinages of Salus date from
much later (after her illness of A.D. 22). This would
therefore be the first representation of Livia as Salus, and
also the very first plastic representation of a woman's
Juno. The latter may help to understand the apparent
discrepancies in the attributes and instruments held by the
divinity. That the snake may, among other things, represent
the Genjus (and consequently, the Juno) is evidenced by a
private altar from Carthage dedicated to the Julians, the
reliefs of which show two snakes, the Genius of Augustus and
Juno of Livia respectively.'1 Another archeological find
103
from the lararium of a house in Ephesos shows a snake
uniting the busts of Livia and Tiberius, again a symbol of
Genius and Juno.
The solid but inartistic quality of workmanship of the
relief of Vicus Sandaliarius does not permit us to identify
Livia clearly according to the criteria of hairhyphenminusstyle and
apparel established by Gross, but the chronology and analogy
with other archeological pieces points in the direction of
Livia. At this time Julia, Gaius' mother and probable
candidate for identification, was in disgrace, and all
images and records of her had presumably been destroyed.
Moreover, the location of the altar is in the Subura, where
two public structures in Livia's name stood, the Porticus
and the shrine of Concordia. Even more relevant to our
hypothesis is the evidence of Livia's association with Gaius
and Lucius in a number of archeological items from different
areas. An Egyptian inscription of 4 B.C. records the dedihyphenminus
cation of an altar and chair on behalf of Augustus, Livia,
Gaius and Lucius Caesar by a Roman official. Livia appears
in company of Gaius and Lucius on coins: an issue from
Magnesia bears jugate busts of Augustus and Livia on the
obverse, Gaius and Lucius face to face on the reverse.
Another, from Tralles, has the head of Gaius Caesar on the
obverse and LiviahyphenminusDemeter on the reverse, with the caption
Kalphaiotasigmaalpharhoepsilontonosomeganu Aei&ia.
The dating of these coins is 4hyphenminus2 B.C., perhaps a little
104
later; the coins from Tralles celebrate games in honor of
the principes iuventutis. and the Livia-Deraeter, in full
figure, may represent a cult statue of Livia. Similar is-
sues, with Gaius and Lucius on the obverse and Livia-Deraeter
on reverse, appear also in Pergamon.64
Given this evidence, the identification of the female
figure on the altar of vicus Sandaliarius with Livia in some
divine form is extremely likely. Since the cult of the
Genius Augusti had been established in 30 B.C. for Rome and
12 B.C. for the rest of the empire, an analogous process can
be inferred here for Livia. By leaving ample freedom of
cult forms to the vici. Augustus encouraged not only the
diffusion of his personal cult but also that of Livia, which
eventually spread beyond Rome and the lower classes.
Further archeological evidence from a slightly later
period indicates the diffusion of the cult of Livia's Juno
in combination with that of her male relatives. An
inscription from El Lehs in Africa, dated A.D. 3, refers to
a votum to Livia's Juno by the dedicators, a (married) cou-
ple. Another inscription from Falerii, Italy, dated between
A.D. 4 and 14, was set on a monument dedicated by a freedman
to the Genii of Augustus, Tiberius and the Juno of Livia.
This private form of devotion then helped to prepare the way
for further divine assimilation and honors.65
The oldest archeological records of honors to Livia
belong to the East, notably Greece and Asia Minor. One of
105
the earliest inscriptions was found in Eleusis, dated
between 31 and 27 B.C.: Livia is referred to with her full
name, Livia Drusilla, wife of the emperor, and the dedicator
is the people. Since there is reason to believe that Octavhyphenminus
ian visited Eleusis shortly after Actium, Livia may not have
been present. However, it was common practice to dedicate
monuments to female relatives of Roman leaders even in
absentia (wives and daughters in particular, mothers less
often). Another dedication from Thasos probably dates back
to some time after Livia's trip to the East and Julia's
subsequent sojourn: Livia, Julia and her daughter Julia are
honored and the hierarchy established. While Julia is
honored simply as epsilonupsilonepsilonrhogammaepsilontonostauiotasigma1 because of her ancestry, a
secular title expressing gratitude without implicating
divinity, Livia is also thetaepsilonalphatonos. The word thetaepsilonomicrontonossigma1 clearly implies
a cult of a ruler, because it is not normally used for wellhyphenminus
known divinities, who obviously do not need the title.'*
Coinages from Pergamon have LiviahyphenminusHera on the obverse,
the more important side, and JuliahyphenminusAphrodite on the reverse.
Other coinages from Clazomenae in Ionia, between 15 and 6
B.C., bear the caption thetaepsilonalphatonos ?iotatonos?iotaalpha and a bust of Livia on the
reverse, Augustus kappatauiotatonossigmatauetasigma1 on the obverse; they were issued
in recognition of the help received from Augustus and Livia
after an earthquake in 12 B.C. Instead of assimilation to
divinities, other types of coins follow the Hellenistic
model of the jugate heads: those of Ephesos, datable only
106
approximately between 29 B.C. and A.D. 14, and those of
Rhoemethalkes of Thrace, between 6 B.C. and the king's death
before Augustus'. The double portraits of Rhoemethalkes and
his queen are modeled on those of Augustus and Livia, the
women's portraits showing traits similar to those of the
men.
Finally, there are the Alexandrian coins with Livia's
image, which appear rather early, a fact hardly surprising
given Egypt's monarchical tradition and her separation from
the rest of the empire. Alexandrian issues with Livia's
portrait can help to identify her in other unnamed porhyphenminus
traits; her features appear on small bronze coins, with
either a bust of Euthenia (A.D. 9hyphenminus12) on the reverse, bound
with wheat and with ears of corn in her hands, or else
showing a modius full of ears of corn, poppies, bound with
wreaths of flowers and flanked by flaming torches with
serpent twines. After 2 B.C. the reverse bears a
cornucopia, with or without the caption Pialphataurhoomicrontonossigma1 Pialphataurhoiotatonosdeltaomicronsigma1.
Her portrait and name are evident since 10hyphenminus9 B.C. as ?iotaomicronupsilontonosiota,alpha
?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauomicronupsilontonos, literal translation into Greek of Livia
Augusti.'7
The various local coinages constitute the most abundant
source of identification of Livia for iconographical purposhyphenminus
es and for the study of her cult. There are, however, a few
more archeological documents attesting to other forms of
honors received by her during these years. An edict from
107
Mytilene, loosely dated between 27 and 11 B.C., honors
Augustus, the Senate, the Vestals, Livia, Octavia and their
children. Here the dynastic and monarchic idea is very
clearly expressed in the association of the family of the
Princeps with the political and religious institutions at
the core of the Roman state.
Another comprehensive honor conferred on the most
significant members of Augustus' family is the renaming in
their honor of the months in the Cypriot calendar. The
governor of the island, Publius Paquius Scaeva, reformed the
calendar in 15 B.C. Changes were afoot in those years in
the island, Paphos had received permission to be renamed
Augusta, and an earthquake had brought about destruction and
consequent generous help from Augustus and Livia. The new
calendar year started with Sebastos (October 2), after
Augustus, followed by Agrippaios and then Libaios, the first
month in the list named after a lady of the imperial house,
and followed by Octabaios (Octavia) and Iouliaos (Iulia).
Livia has therefore a position of pre-eminence among her
female relatives and is second only to Agrippa, the same
ranking being repeated in the frieze of the Ara Pacis a few
years later. Tiberius and Drusus also appear on the calen-
dar, while Gaius and Lucius are missing, strangely enough,
since by this time they had already been adopted by Augustus
(17 B.C.). The calendar underwent a radical revision a few
years later, made necessary by all the events taking place
108
in the family, so that only Augustus' month remained.
Nevertheless, the precedent had been created for the propos-
al, a good many years since, by the Roman Senate to name the
month of October Livius and that of September Tiberius.6?
Conclusion
This cursory examination of the archeological material
datable with some measure of certainty allows us to observe
the following trends in this period. In Rome, Livia's
official position is not yet well defined for lack of an
official title or task. Her leadership within the Princeps'
family circle and pre-eminence over other female members is,
however, well recognized and advertised, as well as her
ideological loyalty to her husband's program. Her
importance as unofficial advisor is suggested by the
privileged position she occupies on important monuments of
the regime, with respect to the rest of the family and
collaborators of Augustus.
While always extremely careful not to succumb to
pitfalls with regard to personal cult and honors to himself
and to family members, Augustus allows the creation of a
private cult of his own Genius which invades the traditional
family cult and prepares the way for a full-fledged state
cult. The same can be observed, although on a smaller
scale, for Livia's cult: the inception of the cult of her
Juno along with that of the Genius Auausti represents the
embryo of cultic and divine honors offered to a woman for
109
the first time in Roman tradition. The traditional patina
given to it, with the references to the Arvals' ritual, and
the parallel emphasis on the personal Juno of women
successfully mask the actual novelty of the cult.
In the East Livia is honored as wife of Rome's ruler,
and in a few places she is the titular figurehead of divine
cult (Thasos) or associated in cult with divinities like
Hera, Hestia (in Athens) and especially Demeter; the
connection with the latter will also be exploited to her
advantage in the western part of the empire.
Her work of patronage centers on issues related to the
life of women and the family, with particular emphasis on
marriage and the rearing of children, the reestablishment of
cults concerning marriage and the conduct of the married
woman. In this respect her personal example could have more
far-reaching effects than the repressive laws enacted by her
husband.
110
Notes to Chapter Two
1. R. G. 6.2, 8.2, 8.12 on Augustus' reiteration of the
concept of concordia between the senate and the people and
the princeps. Cf. E. Ramage "The Nature and Purpose of
Augustus' Res Gestae," Historia 54 (1987), for an inhyphenminusdepth
discussion of the Res Gestae.
2. Suet. Aug. 51, 54, 55, 56.1 on Augustus' tolerance of
free speech; cf. Tac. Ann. 1.72: facta arauebantur. dicta
impune erant. Suet. Aug. 34, Dio 54.16 on reform of marhyphenminus
riage. Cf. also K. A. Raaflaub and L. J. Samons II,
"Opposition to Augustus," Between Republic and Empire, ed.
K. A. Raaflaub and M. Toher (Berkeley, 1990), p. 444; R.
Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1952), pp. 320, 419hyphenminus20,
479hyphenminus487.
3. R. G. 3.1, 13 on peace. E. Ramage (above, n. 1), p. 31
on Augustus' emphasis on precedents, and pp. 76hyphenminus99 on pax;
and the other Augustan blessings.
4. Tac. Ann. 1.10.4, Suet. Aug. 19.1, Dio 54.15.1, 55.4.3,
Sen. De Brev. Vitae 4.4hyphenminus5, Pliny Nu. H. 7.147 on plots. Cf.
E. Ramage (above, n. 1), pp. 34hyphenminus35 on reliability and omishyphenminus
sions. R. Bauman, The Crimen Maiestatis (Johannesburg,
1970), p. 197: the author places this conspiracy in 22 B.C.
W. Eder, "Augustus and the Power of Tradition," Between
Republic and Empire (above, n. 2), pp. 73hyphenminus74 on the transihyphenminus
tion from republic to a new order.
5. W. Eder (above, n. 4), p. 78.
6. W. Eder (above, n. 4), p. 83.
7. E. Rawson, "The Eastern Clientelae of Clodius and the
Claudii," Historia 22 (1973), pp. 219hyphenminus239, and "More on the
Clientelae of the Patrician Claudii," Historia 26 (1977),
pp. 340hyphenminus357. Cf. also W. Eder (above, n. 4), pp. 72, 83.
R. G. 15hyphenminus24 on Augustus' own liberalitas; cf. E. Ramage
(above, n. 1), pp. 44hyphenminus46. P. Zanker, Augustus und die Macht
der Bilder (Munchen, 1990), pp. 92hyphenminus93. W. Eder (above, n.
4), p. 72, and E. Ramage (above, n. 1), p. 27: no mention of
Antony's name at 8_i G. 1.1, 24.1.
8. Suet. Aug. 7: Plancus was one of the most successful
deserters in the period of the Civil Wars, having left D.
Brutus for Antony and eventually the latter for Octavian.
He was the father of the notorious Plancina, Livia's friend
and enemy of Agrippina the Elder. Cf. K. Scott, "Tiberius'
Refusal of the Title Augustus," C. Ph. 27 (1932), p. 46 on
the symbolism of the title, and W. Eisenhut, "Augures,"
Ill
Kleine Paulv 1 (1979), col. 734. M. Torelli, "La
Rappresentazione e lo Stile nella Dinamica dell'Ascesa
Sociale della Tarda Eta' Repubblicana e della Prima Eta'
Imperiale," Ouaderni Camerti di Studi Romanistici 13 (1985),
pp. 591-592; P. Zanker (above, n. 7), pp. 103-104, 132-135;
M. Hofer, "Portrat," in Kaiser Augustus und die Verlorene
Republik (Mainz, 1988), pp. 323-324 n. 168, pp. 341-342 n.
192, on portrait types.
9. Cf. Chapter 1.5 of this study: Dio 49.18.6-7 reports the
privilege of dining in the Temple of Concordia, granted by
the senate to the triumvirs and their families, as the first
official recognition of the identification of the ruler and
his family with the state.
10. P? Zanker (above, n. 7), pp. 73-79; H. von Hesberg,
"Die Veranderung des Erscheinungsbildes der Stadt Rom," in
Augustus und die Verlorene Republik (above, n. 8), pp. 97-
108; E. La Rocca, "Der Apollo Sosianus-Tempel," (above, n.
8), pp. 123-136; P. Gross and G. Sauron, "Das politische
Programm der offentlichen Bauten," (above, n. 8), pp. 58-59.
11. M. Rostovtzeff, "Roraische Bleitesseren, " Klio, 3
(1905), p. 20.
12. Virg. Aen- 8.698.
13. Dio 52.42.6-7. The short discussion on Egyptian influ-
ences is indebted to an unpublished paper of Sarolta Takacs,
"Isis, Sarapis and the Roman Emperors," delivered at the
University of Oregon in the fall of 1992.
14. Catullus, n. 63 on the rites of Cybele; Livy 29.10.4,
38.18.9-10; Polyb. 31.37; Diod. Sic. 36.13; Plut. Max. 17.5-
6 on the association of Cybele with Roman victories. Cf. R.
McKay Wilhelm, "Cybele: the Great Mother of Augustan Order,"
Vergilius 34 (1988), pp. 77-78, and P. Zanker (above, n. 7),
p. 115.
15. First and foremost, effeminacy and cowardice (4.215-
217, 9.614-620, 11.769-777, 12.99-100), but also wife-steal-
ing (4.215-217, 7.361-364). For Roman attitudes toward
Hellenized Easterners, cf. J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Romans and
Aliens (Chapel Hill 1979), pp. 29-53, 60-63, 66-68.
16. G. W. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford
1965), pp. 3, 7, 31.
17. In Augustus' times, Propertius, Tibullus and Horace
appear rather cool to the moral propaganda, and Ovid was
eventually exiled also for his flouting of moral themes.
112
18. R. Syme (above, n. 2) pp. 453hyphenminus455 on the characterishyphenminus
tics of Italian provincials.
19. Cf. R. I. Frank, "Augustus' legislation on marriage and
children," CSCA 8 (1975), pp. 41hyphenminus43; K. Hopkins, Death and
Renewal (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 80hyphenminus98.
20. Hopkins (above, n. 19), pp. 97hyphenminus98.
21. R. Frank (above, n. 19), pp. 45hyphenminus48, and J. Crook, Law
and Life of Rome (Ithaca, 1967), pp. 99hyphenminus102.
22. Tac. Ann. 3.22.1, 4.52.2: the charges of impudicitia,
adulterium, veneficia in principem, devotiones, quaesitum
per Chaldaeos in domum Caesaris. used against female friends
of Agrippina.
23. R. Frank (above, n. 19), p. 48.
24. Suet. Tib. 35; Tac. Ann. 2.85. Cf. J. Crook (above, n.
21), p. 102.
25. B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician (London, 1986), p.
19. R. Syme (above, n. 2) p. 345.
26. Dio 53.30.2, 53.3 3 on Marcellus' thwarted accession;
cf. also R. Syme (above, n. 2), pp. 346, 415hyphenminus417. Sen. Ad
Marciam 2.3hyphenminus4 on Octavia's undignified and excessive mournhyphenminus
ing. Cf. S. Dixon, The Roman Mother (Norman, 1988), pp. 73,
178, on the political significance of Octavia's bitterness.
27. B. Levick (above, n. 25), p. 29.
28. B. Levick (above, n. 25), pp. 41hyphenminus42; contra A. Ferrill,
"Augustus and his Daughter: A Modern Myth," Latomus 168
(1980), pp. 332hyphenminus345. P. Zanker (above, n. 7), pp. 219 n.
167 and 221 n. 172.
29. Sen. EE? 70.10; Suet. Aug. 62.2, 69.1. Cf. E. Leon,
"Scribonia and her daughters," Tau?Rho? (1953), pp. 169hyphenminus170.
30. Dio 48.54.4, Suet. Aug. 63.2, Tac. Ann. 4.39.5, 4.40.7hyphenminus
8 on Julia's betrothals; Suet. A.ug. 64 on her upbringing.
Cf. R. Syme (above, n. 2), pp. 378, 421.
31. Cf. Zanker (above, n. 7), pp. 218hyphenminus221; H. Mattingly,
Coins of the Roman Empire at the British Museum (London
1965), pp. 21hyphenminus22; F. Sandels, Frauen der JuliohyphenminusClaudischen
Familie, (Darmstadt, 1912), p. 52.
113
32. Mu. Anderson, "The Portrait Medallions in the Imperial
Villa at Boscotrecase," AJA 91 (1987), pp. 127hyphenminus135; G.
Grether, "Livia and the Roman Imperial Cult,11 AJP 67 (1946),
p. 230; H. Mattingly (above, n. 31), p. 21; Fitzler, "Iulius
(Iulia)," RE. (Stuttgart, 1917) 19 Halbband, col. 904.
33. F. Ghedini, "Augusto e la Propaganda Apollinea,"
Archeoloaia Classica 38hyphenminus40 (1986hyphenminus1988), pp. 133hyphenminus135: Octavia
was represented as Diana Lucina on the St. Petersburg
artifact. Phyphenminus Zanker (above, n. 7), p. 195: Apollo and Diana
are represented also on the cuirass of the Augustus statue
of Priraa Porta, as following on each other's steps. This,
in Zanker's opinion, signifies the eternity of time. Livy
3.55.6hyphenminus8: the temple of Ceres, Liber and Libera benefited
from the confiscation of the property of those who had
injured the tribunes.
34. Macr. Sat. 2.5.2, 2.5.5hyphenminus6, 2.5.8 on Julia's personalihyphenminus
ty; Tac. Aonhyphenminus 1.53.5, Suet. lib.. 7.32, 10.35 on her
disparagement of Tiberius.
35. The expression princeps femina appears in Ovid Ex Pon.
3.1.125; Livia is also referred to as princeps in the
Consolatio ad Liviam 349hyphenminus356. For a detailed discussion see
N. Purcell, "Livia and the Womanhood of Rome," PCPS 212
(1986), p. 78hyphenminus82.
36. Suet. Aug. 66.10, Dio 55.9.2hyphenminus3 on Julia's popularity.
B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician (above, n. 25), p. 42,
and M. Pani, Tendenze Politiche della Successione al
Principato di Aucrusto (Bari, 1979), pp. 42hyphenminus44 on Julia's
possible plans. B. Levick, "Tiberius' Retirement to
Rhodes," Latomus 31 (1972), p. 808 and (above, n. 25), pp.
42hyphenminus44; R. Syme, (above, n. 2), pp. 422hyphenminus425 on Tiberius'
adherents.
37. B. Levick, "Julians and Claudians," G&R 22 (1975), p.
30; Scribonia's presence behind the curtains may be inferred
also from the fact that Cornelius Scipio, one of the achyphenminus
cused, was her grandson.
38. B. Levick (above, n. 36), p. 33.
39. Tac. Annhyphenminus 2.27hyphenminus31, Suet. Xib. 25, Veil. Pat. 2.129.2,
Dio 57.15.4hyphenminus5 on Libo's crime.
40. For a more specific discussion of the two "fields," see
A. Ferrill (above, n. 28), pp. 332hyphenminus334. Suet. T_ib_. 12hyphenminus13 on
the dangers besetting Tiberius in exile.
114
41. Veil. 2.100.4, Tac. Ann? 1hyphenminus10.4, 4.44.3, Dio 55.10.15
on Iullus' death. Veil. 2.100.4, Sen. De Brev. Vitae 4.5 on
his family's background. Dio 55.10.15 on his monarchical
designs. Julius' son died young in Marseilles (Tac. Ann.
4.44.10), Sempronius' became a merchant (Tac. Ann.
4.13), a fate worse than death for a Roman aristocrat.
42. A. Richlin, "Julia's Jokes," Stereotypes of Women in
Power, ed. B. Garlick, S. Dixon and P. Allen (New York,
1992), p. 74. Julia appeared on numismatic issues in Rome,
while Livia never had her own coinage in the city until
Tiberian times, and even then, her identity was implied
rather than made explicit.
43. Ovid would be involved in a similar scandal with
Julia's daughter. His poetry by and large poked fun at the
moral reform, subverting it through humor. Veil. Pat.
2.100.4, on Julia's hybris. Cf. R. Dunkle, "The Rhetorical
Tyrant in Roman Historiography," C_W 65 (1971) and "The Greek
Tyrant and Roman Political Invective of the Late Republic,"
Tau?Rho? 98 (1967); see also the discussion of role models and
stereotypes in Chapter Five of this dissertation and Chapter
Six for a discussion of Cato's speech against the repeal of
the Oppian Law.
44. Pliny Nu. H. 7.149. Cf. A. Ferrill (above, n. 28), pp.
344hyphenminus345.
45. Tac. Ann. 6.25.2, 6.10.1. In this interpretation of
immorality I agree with R. Bauman, Women and Politics in
Ancient Rome (London, 1992), p. 153; cf. also Bauman, pp.
116hyphenminus118 on the reasons and timing of the scandal. Livy
2.5.5hyphenminus10: Brutus oversees the execution of his sons, and
2.6.4: Brutus is mourned by Roman women as a father, avenger
of their honor.
46. R. Syme (above, n. 2), p. 414 on Octavian's propaganda
against Fulvia and Cleopatra. N. Purcell (above, n. 35),
pp. 78hyphenminus105, esp. pp. 85hyphenminus87, on Livia triumphator by proxy
through the erection of monuments; also G. Zinserling,
"Kunstpolitik des Augustus," Klio 67 (1985), pp. 79hyphenminus80. Phyphenminus
Zanker (above, n. 7), pp. 192hyphenminus195, agrees on the heroic and
divine nakedness of the bare feet, reinforced by the little
Cupid riding the dolphin, an allusion to the origins of the
Julians. However he believes the statue to have been the
marble copy of a bronze original commissioned by the Senate.
47. Dio 58.2.2hyphenminus3. Suet. Aug. 40, Tib. 51 on Livia's interhyphenminus
cession in favor of provincials wishing to become citizens.
Jos. A. J. 17.10, B. J. 1.566, 2.641hyphenminus643 on her help to
Herod and Salome.
115
48. E. La Rocca, Ara Pacis Aucrustae (Rome, 1983), pp. 31hyphenminus
34, 38.
49. S. Treggiari, "Roman Marriage," in Civilization of the
Ancient Mediterranean, ed. M. Grant and R. Kitzinger, vol.
3, p. 1348; Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford 1991), pp. 84hyphenminus
85 and chapter 10 and "Digna Condicio," EMC/CV 3 (1984), p.
423; also J. Crook (above, n. 21) p. 102, and U. Wilcken,
"Ehepatrone im romischen Kaiserhaus," Zeitschrift der
Saviony Stiftuna. 29 Bd. (1908hyphenminus1909), pp. 504hyphenminus507.
50. S. Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt (New York,
1984), p. 15. Dio 57.12.2 on Livia's audiences: there is
really no indication that this custom had not been in use
earlier. Diod. Sic. 19.59.4 on Phila. CIL 10.5056: H.
Basila donated 400,000 sesterces to Altina for the support
of needy children, cf. also W. Sontheimer, "Alimenta," in
Kleine Pauly Bd. 1 (Milnchen, 1979), col. 256hyphenminus257. Suet.
Aug. 41.46; Dio 51.21.3, 53.2.2 on Augustus' relief to needy
families.
51. JOS. A. J. 18.143, 156, 165, 15.342hyphenminus343, 16.16; Strabo
Geogr. 16.2.46 on Herod Agrippa's upbringing. Cf. also D.
R. Schwartz, Agrippa I (Tubingen, 1990), p. 41. Suet. Aug.
48, Gaius 26; Dio 51.15.6 on Juba and Cleopatra Selene; cf.
also A. Momigliano and T. J. Cadoux, "Juba," OCD (Oxford,
1970), p. 566. R. Hanslik, "Arminius," in Kleine Pauly Bd.l
(Munich, 1979), col. 601, and E. Hohl EZ 167 (1942), p. 465
on Arminius. Tac. Ann. 2.1.2 on Vonones.
52. Dio 55.8.2, Ovid Fa^stj 1.637hyphenminus650. M. BoudreauhyphenminusFlory,
"Sic Exempla Parantur: Livia's Shrine to Concordia and the
Porticus Liviae," Historia 33 (1984), pp. 313hyphenminus318; for the
matron's qualities, see S. Treggiari, R. M. (above, n. 49),
pp. 242hyphenminus249 on partnership. C. J. Simpson, "Livia and the
Constitution of the Aedes Concordiae," Historia 40/4 (1991),
pp. 449hyphenminus455.
53. H. Jordan, Topographie der Stadt Rom im Altertum (Rome
repr. Rome, 1970), part 2, p. 183. Cic. De Domo 136 on
temple's foundation by a Licinia. Cf. Ovid Fasti 5.149hyphenminus158.
A. Greifenhagen, "Bona Dea," MDAI 52 (1937), pp. 236hyphenminus237,
and H. H. J. Brouwer, Bona Dea (Leiden, 1989). Macr. Sat.
1.12.26 on the pharmacy at the temple; Suet. Aug. 80hyphenminus81 on
Augustus' frail health. Cf. N. Purcell (above, n. 35), p.
95.
54. Ovid Fasti, 637hyphenminus648 on Vedius' palace. Dio 54.23.3hyphenminus4
on Vedius' cruelty. Pliny Nu. H. 14.11 on the aspect of the
colonnade. Cf. M. BoudreauhyphenminusFlory (above, n. 52), p. 318,
and P. Zanker (above, n. 7), pp. 141hyphenminus142.
116
55. P. Zanker (above, eta. 7) pp. 316hyphenminus319. Cf. C.I.L.
8.26464, AE 1969hyphenminus70, 648; C.I.L. 8.26471, AE 1969hyphenminus70, 650.
New Carthage's name AE 651; LiviahyphenminusAphrodite, AJS 1950, p.7,
Paphos; also J. Reynolds, "The Origins and Beginnings of the
Imperial Cult at Aphrodisia," PCPS 206 (1980), 70hyphenminus84, p. 78.
See also R. DuncanhyphenminusJones, Structure and scale in Roman
Economy (Cambridge, 1990), p. 179.
56. The Fasti Consulares of Cupra Maritima quoted in
Epioraphica 9 (1947), pp. 131hyphenminus142, and A? 1950, 93, coincihyphenminus
dental ly give the names of M. Plautius Silvanus as consul
and C. Fufius Geminus as consul suffect for the year 2 B.C.:
two of Livia's adherents were consuls in the year of Julia's
catastrophe. Regardless of Tiberius' disgrace, his mother's
influence was still felt. Cf. Suet. Otho 1, Galba. 3hyphenminus6; on
Burrus, cf. CIL 12.5842; Fufius Geminus, Tac. Ann. 5.2.
57. M. Rostowt2eff, JUS 39 (1919), pp. 99hyphenminus104.
58. JOS. A. J. 17.10, B. J. 1.566.
59. On the towns named after Livia, Jos. A. J. 18.27, B. J.
W. 2.59; gifts to the temple in Jerusalem, Jos. A. J.
16.5.1, Philo Leg, ad Gaium 40. 319hyphenminus320; penteteric games,
A. J. 16.139; inheritance from Salome, A_._jJ.. 18.31, B. J.
2.167; inheritance from Herod, A. J. 17.146, 190.
60. J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (London, 1982), pp.
104hyphenminus6: text quoted by N. Purcell (above, n. 35), p. 102 n.
55. Dio 54.7.1 on Sparta's benefits; Suet. Aug. 40 on
Livia's Gaulish client. M. Kajava, "Roman Senatorial Women
and the Greek East: Epigraphic Evidence from the Republican
and Augustan Period," in Roman Eastern Policy and Other
Studies in Roman History, ed. H. Solin and M. Kajava
(Helsinki, 1990), p. 65.
61. Dio, 55.2.4, 55.8.2hyphenminus3; D. Fishwick, The Imperial Cult
in the Latin West (Leiden, 1987), v. 1, pp. 584hyphenminus85.
62. G. DuryhyphenminusMoyaers and M. Renard, "Apercu Critique des
Travaux Relatifs au Culte de Junon," ANRW 2.17.1, pp. 148hyphenminus
149, n. 45. Tib. 3.6.48, 3.12.1, 3.19.15; Sen. Ep^ 110.2;
Petr. Sat. 25.4; Pliny Nu. H. 2.7.16. Epigraphical records,
see for instance CIL 5.6954. For images in private lararia,
see G. Grether (above, n. 32), p. 225.
63. H. Trankle, Appendix Tibulliana (Berlin, 1990), p. 331
n. 15. W. H. Gross, Iulia Aucrusta (Gottingen, 1962), p. 77.
A. Greifenhagen (above, n. 53) and H. H. J. Brouwer (above,
n. 53) p. 19; G. Grether (above, n. 32), p. 225; R. Winkes,
"Leben und Ehrungen der Livia," Archeoloaia 36 (1985), p.
64.
117
64. I.G.R. 1.11099, p. 380 Egyptian inscriptions; B.M.C.
Lydia, pp. 144, 344 coins from Magnesia and Tralles, dis-
cussed by Gross (above, n- 63) pp. 26, 41; B.M.C. Mysia, p.
140 coins from Pergamon.
65. CIL 5.2.6954, 8.16456, 10.1023, 11.3076.
66. A? 1971, 439, ?EG 24.212, Cf. AH 1928, 50. Dio 51.4.1.
M. Kajava (above, n. 60), pp. 107-108. D. Fishwick (above,
n. 61) vol. 1, pp. 27-28, 34.
67. B.M.C. Mysia, p. 139 coinages of Pergamon; B.M.C.
Ionia, pp. 31, 72, 73 Clazomenae and Ephesos; B.M.C. Alex-
andria, p. 4; for description and discussion, cf. Gross
(above, n. 63), pp. 23 n. 2, 26, 29, 33. R.P.C. 1.1, p.
693: this series could have started even in 30-28 b.C.
68. I.G.R. 4.39 Edict of Mytilene. Dio 54.23.7 on Livia's
and Augustus' help after the earthquake; Suet.Tib. 26 on the
Senate's proposal. Cf. K. Scott, "Honorific Months," Y.C.S.
2 (1931), p. 208; Bischoff, "Libaios," B^Z (Stuttgart, 1958)
ed. K. Ziegler and W. John, col. 1744-1752.
Chapter Three
The Queen Mother
With the adoption in A.D. 4 of Tiberius as successor
together with Agrippa Postumus, Livia saw her ambitions only
partially realized, owing to the persistence of Julia's
faction. The adoption of Germanicus as son of Tiberius and
brother-colleague of Drusus was meant to strengthen the
dynasty and end old family resentments: instead, it
eventually created greater friction, on account both of Ger-
manicus' own popularity and of his connections to Julia's
group through Agrippina. For the time being, however, it
served to keep the empire reasonably peaceful, giving the
impression that the situation was under control and calming
the worries created by Augustus' old age and failing health.
Livia's position as mother and grandmother of the successors
was officially advertised. Her iconography in these years
presents her as mother?of the dynasty and of the country?
associating her with a number of benevolent maternal
divinities in more or less direct fashion. This
assimilation had been in progress for some time in the
Hellenized areas of the empire. Now in Rome, in addition to
the cult of her Juno (companion to Augustus' Genius) Livia
is also associated with Ceres and Ops through the erection
of the altars of Ceres Mater and Ops Augusta.
118
119
1. Family Politics from A.D. 4 to 14
The premature deaths of Lucius (A.D. 2) and Gaius
(A.D. 4) brought about belated recognition for Tiberius but
created suspicion that Livia had contrived to accelerate
nature's processes. She certainly played a role in the
adoption of her son, as she was fond of reminding him in
later years. Tiberius, on the other hand, even if leading a
private existence at this point, was the only choice
available at the moment.1 He was the only candidate with
the skill and experience necessary to bridge the generation
gap between the aging and sickly Augustus and the younger
heirs, Gerraanicus, Agrippa and Drusus. The pressure
exercised on Augustus by the two family factions (Julian and
Claudian or, better, Julian-Scribonian and Livian) was
evident in the selection of the two immediate successors,
Tiberius and Agrippa Postumus, both adopted in A.D. 4.
Agrippa's adoption was a compromise because he received
little official recognition and none of the privileges which
his two dead brothers had enjoyed while they were still
under age; this was possibly due to his unsuitable
personality.
Tiberius was granted tribunician power (extraordinari-
ly) for ten years, becoming in practice co-regent, and was
sent to command operations in Germany. The adoption of
Gerraanicus by Tiberius, prior to his own adoption, strength-
ened the Livian faction, since Germanicus was Tiberius'
120
nephew and a descendant of Octavia, without Scribonian blood
in him. By this new adoption Tiberius' son Drusus and
Germanicus were on an equal footing as colleagues, in an
arrangement similar to that previously existing between
Gaius and Lucius.2
The Julian-Scribonian faction, represented by Agrippa,
his sister Julia and her husband Lucius Aemilius Paullus, a
grandson of Scribonia, probably viewed with alarm the
concentration of power in the hands of their rivals, and
were possibly behind a number of popular agitations for the
recall of the elder Julia from exile, placed by Dio around
these years. These agitations were aided by a combination
of natural disasters, famine, discontent in the army and
trouble at the frontiers; revolutionary plans were discussed
in the City, attributed to a certain Publius Rufus, believed
to be an adherent of Julia. The marriage of Germanicus with
Agrippina, probably in A.D. 5, did not mend family
rivalries; on the contrary, it pitted Agrippina against her
sister Julia, in competition over the position of their
respective children within the succession. Although Julia's
daughter was betrothed to Claudius, the chances of a male
descendant of Scribonia reaching the inner circle of the
immediate successors seemed slim at the time; they became
even slimmer with Agrippa's progressive disgrace. Official
reasons attributed his fall from grace to his intractable
and uncouth character; his lack of refinement may have
121
combined with an uncompromising and undiplomatic nature,
like that of his sister Agrippina, and he may have sought
fast advancement, crossing Livia's path (hence his insults
and anger toward her). In A.D. 6 he was emancipated and
sent to Surrentum; from there, since his attitude did not
improve, he was banished to Planasia the following year,
probably to forestall dynastic troubles.3
Dynastic troubles could not be avoided. Between the
end of A.D. 7 and the beginning of 8 both the younger Julia
and her husband were condemned on separate charges: he of
having had part in plots, probably those of Publius Rufus,
she of adultery and immorality. The engagement of Julia and
Paullus' daughter to Claudius was broken. The fate of
Paullus is a matter of conjecture: it is commonly believed
that he was executed or died, although Syme claims that he
was simply banished, since his name still appears in the
list of the Arvales of A.D. 13. The supposed adulterer
Decimus Iunius Silanus chose to go into exile, although no
sentence was passed against him by either the Senate or by
Augustus. The poet Ovid instead was relegated to Tomis, by
means of a personal edict of Augustus. Unlike Ovid or
Julia, Silanus eventually returned to Rome during the reign
of Tiberius. The Silani were connected with the Lepidi, but
also with the Sempronii Gracchi, the Quinctii and the Appii
Claudii, as well as with the circle of Germanicus and
Agrippina. Members of these families had been previously
122
involved in the scandal of the elder Julia. This, and the
fact that Julia's memory?like that of her mother?was
obliterated in every possible way suggests the hypothesis
that she may have been guilty of conspiracy.4
Nevertheless, the banishments of Julia and her brother
did not make Tiberius' succession more secure, because there
were periodic attempts to rescue them and their mother:
Asinius and Epicadus' in A.D. 8, Clemens' between A.D. 14
and 16. Their existence, as well as frequent mutinies in
the army, continued to threaten Tiberius' position and made
Agrippa's murder in A.D. 14 necessary.5
In A.D. 13 Tiberius became officially collega imperii.
with the renewal of his tribunician power and the grant of
consular imperium, while Germanicus and Drusus' careers
accelerated as a result. Augustus in the meantime?while
still carrying out his public duties?became increasingly
weaker and tired, to the point of discontinuing his
audiences to people and Senate and curtailing his attendance
at public banquets; in the Senate he showed up rarely. As
for Tiberius, after assisting Augustus with the census in
A.D. 14, he left for Illyricum to supervise the operations
against the rebels. Augustus accompanied him for part of
the way. It is in this period that the controversial
"secret" visit of Augustus to Planasia, with the company
only of his friend and relative Fabius Maximus, took place.
Its purpose, variously interpreted as a tentative
123
reconciliation with the exiled Agrippa, or as the last,
convincing proof of the young man's unfitness to rule, owes
its coloring to subsequent events. At any rate, despite the
reportedly affectionate tone of the encounter, Agrippa's
chances did not change, since his name was absent from
Augustus' will.6
The story of the secret trip has left some scholars
skeptical; already in antiquity Pliny and Plutarch regarded
it as doubtful. Some believed it (Tacitus, Dio). Modern
scholars are divided: some believe the story partially,
others reject it. That Livia was unaware of it would seem
improbable, given Augustus' frail health and her knowledge
of the comings and goings in the palace. The story of how
Fabius' wife Marcia unwittingly betrayed the secret to Livia
has been discounted by Syme as fictitious. The absence of
Fabius Maximus from a significant ceremony in Rome after May
14, documented by the Acta Fratrum Arvalium,7 has been
taken by some scholars as proof that the trip really took
place. On the other hand, it may also have been due to
other reasons, such as bad health for example.
The sources themselves are very uncertain with regards
to this secret visit. Pliny the Elder, enumerating the
various unhappy events that marred Augustus' life, refers to
his relationship with Agrippa in these words abdicatio
Postumi Aarippae post adoptionem. desiderium post
relegationera. C. Questa argues that the word desiderium
124
indicates wistful yearning and regret on the part of
Augustus, without implying any further action on his part.
Plutarch also alludes to Augustus' possible intention to
recall Agrippa (betaomicronupsilonlambdaepsilonupsilonomicrontonos?epsilonnuomicronsigma1), but makes no mention of the
trip. His version of the event seems furthermore
unreliable, because he mistakes Fabius for Fulvius and turns
Marcia and Maximus into a replica of Arria and Paetus.8
Tacitus and Dio both accept without reservations the reality
of the trip, because it fits in their own narrative schemes:
real or not, the trip to Planasia became, in antihyphenminusimperial
history writing, the necessary prelude to Tiberius and
Livia's guest for power. Its ramifications, i.e., the death
of Augustus and the murder of Agrippa, herald the motif of
internecine strife that soon became a recurrent theme in the
history of the JuliohyphenminusClaudians. The source of the story may
be tracked to the memoirs of Agrippina, given the emphasis
placed on a possible reconciliation with Agrippa and also on
the figure of Fabius Maxiraus. Pliny implies that Maximus'
presence may have worried Livia and Tiberius, since both
Fabius and his wife Marcia had connections with the circle
of Julia and Agrippa through their acquaintance with Ovid.
Marcia was also a cousin of Augustus and had access to
Livia; as such, she had been enlisted by the poet's wife to
speak on his behalf. Fabius was known for his loyalty to
Augustus and his line; he may well have promoted the trip,
in the belief that it might lead to a reconciliation and to
125
the reinstatement of a direct descendant of Augustus as a
successor. The removal of Agrippa may even have proved
advantageous to Agrippina, since it would improve the
chances for the succession of her own sons. Nevertheless,
years later, in the climate of suspicion and bitterness
created by Germanicus' death and by Sejanus' maneuvers,
Fabius' sudden death and the Marcia episode were fashioned
into providing ammunition against Livia and Tiberius by
partisans of Agrippina and by writers hostile to Tiberius.*
2. The death of Augustus
Shortly after the supposed trip to Planasia Augustus
died peacefully in Nola in Livia's arms, after having seen
Tiberius off to Illyria. This much is certain; for the
rest, the moment of truth for the regime and for the empire
inspired a number of versions of the event, which have
fostered lively debates among scholars.
Generally, the narratives concerning the death of
Augustus seem to fall into two categories: those which
follow the "official" version, presented by Suetonius and
Velleius, and those which prefer the more intriguing, but
highly fictionalized anti-Tiberian version, presented by
Tacitus and Dio.
The official version presents Tiberius as the chosen
successor of Augustus. Suetonius reports that Tiberius,
urgently recalled, found his step-father still alive and
conferred at length with him. Typically, the author reports
126
even Augustus' last, uncharitable comment on his successor.
The actual death eventually occurred in a semi-public
setting, with friends and visitors arriving from Rome, and
Augustus having himself groomed for the occasion.10
Tacitus and Dio's accounts on the other hand, bring to
the inevitable conclusion the chain of events set off by the
trip to Planasia. While Tacitus hints at a possible
involvement of Livia, Dio refers to the means by which she
accomplished her crime, i.e. Augustus' favorite figs,
poisoned right on the tree. The outrageousness of the
statement, as well as its patently fictitious nature, does
not seem to disturb Dio who, in the same breath, admits that
Augustus' demise may have been due to other causes as well.
Both Tacitus and Dio would like their readers to believe
that Livia had kept her husband's death secret by preventing
access to the house and by issuing deceptive bulletins on
Augustus' health, while Tiberius was still securing his own
position. Both authors are aware of the official version:
Dio mentions it, but states that his own account follows the
version preferred by "the most trustworthy writers."
Tacitus, on the other hand, seems to contradict himself at
1.13.2, where he mentions Augustus' last conversations,
presumably with his friends, concerning the gualities of
possible candidates to the principate. The inconsistencies
of the version preferred by Tacitus and Dio have been
noticed and discussed by a number of scholars, who
127
preponderantly absolve Livia."
The stratagem, of dubious historicity, has
similarities with Tacitus' narrative of the death of
Claudius at the hands of Agrippina, and with the Livian
legend of Tanaquil and Servius Tullius; there is a strong
suggestion that fraud led to the succession of Tiberius.
Had the stratagem actually been used, it probably would have
been a sound practical decision, motivated by the
uncertainty of the situation: the possibility of uprisings
was very real, the legions in turmoil, Julia and Agrippa's
adherents still active. The murder of Agrippa, mysterious
first crime of the new regime, was a political necessity:
even before Augustus' death there had been attempts to free
him and his sister. Some even postulate that the order for
his execution may have been issued by Augustus himself, with
Tiberius' seal affixed by Sallustius Crispus, while Livia's
supposed involvement is downplayed or rejected.12 The
wisdom of the decision became immediately apparent: just
about the same time, Agrippa's slave Clemens attempted the
rescue of his master, to smuggle him to the legions in
Germany, where his sister Agrippina and his brother-in-law
Germanicus were. A plan so daring probably enjoyed the
support of influential people at court. A possible proof of
this is that Agrippa's murder delayed Clemens but did not
deter him: assuming his master's identity, he continued in
his plots, his followers growing in the meantime. Tiberius
128
succeeded in getting rid of him only two years later.13
The funeral ceremonies of Augustus were grandiose:
they harkened back not only to those given Marcellus and
Agrippa, but Sulla himself, the restorer of the aristocracy.
According to Dio, the materials of the bier were decidedly
royal. The waxen imago placed in the coffin was not a
realistic reproduction of the aged and sick ruler but the
idealized portrait of the ever-young conqueror, in his
triumphal costume. A similar effigy, in gold (symbol of
immortality), was borne from the Senate, and another placed
in a triumphal chariot. The concept was reinforced by the
parade of images representing the people subjected, as well
as by the procession of portraits of Roman greats, to
enhance the scanty gallery of the Octavii and to indicate
the ideological respectability of the Augustan program.
Significantly, no image of Caesar was paraded among those of
Augustus' relatives and ancestors, but that of Pompey
appeared among the Roman greats. The inclusion was more
appropriate than one would think: Pompey's career had
paralleled in illegality that of the young Octavian, but
after his death Pompey had been associated with the champi-
ons of the Republic. Continuity with the past, visibly
reiterated in the monuments of the regime, had allowed
Augustus to maintain his rule, and would now support the
rule of his successor: as Augustus had presided over
Caesar's deification to legitimize his own power, he
129
likewise choreographed his own funeral and the aftermath of
his death (cult, creation of the Augusta) to give a solid
base to his successor.14
Livia collaborated, lavishly rewarding the man who
swore to have seen Augustus' soul fly up to heaven with a
sum of money sufficient to put him in the senators' ranks.
Tiberius rejected titles for himself, except that of Divi
Augusti filius, which made him also grandson of Caesar, thus
assenting to becoming an hereditary dynast. The
legitimation offered by the Senate paled in comparison to
that given by the two divi. This accounts for Tiberius'
conscious effort, throughout his rule, to adhere to the
principles set out by Augustus. After the cremation, Livia
and a number of knights remained by the pyre for five days,
while the bones were being gathered and prepared for the
mausoleum. Rather than an uninterrupted stay, this was
probably a ritual watch: widows were expected to have a
noticeable part in the rituals for their deceased husbands,
remaining by the pyre for some time. In the case of the
princeps' funeral, the period set aside for the ritual watch
was undoubtedly longer.15
Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Augustus'
will, Livia had become heir to one-third of her husband's
estate, thanks to a privilege received sometime earlier in
A.D. 9. Along with a number of trustworthy women she had
been freed from the restraints of the lex Voconia, which
130
limited the amounts inherited by women. Livia, who had
already been freed from tutela by the grant of the ius trium
liberorum in 9 B.C., could now inherit large amounts and use
them as she saw fit. The nature and chronology of this
measure seems to indicate that perhaps Augustus considered
leaving her more than just a large amount of his patrimony.
Chronologically, the new privilege was granted the year
after the banishment of Julia and her accomplices: the
inheritance of one-third of Augustus' patrimony would make
Livia the wealthiest member of the family, second only to
Tiberius and therefore able to give him material support
against rival factions. Livia's adoption into the Julian
clan was done through the testament, so she then became, at
her husband's death, the oldest member of the Julian family.
She had been Augustus' closest collaborator and the
unprecedented bequest of the title of Augusta was a public
acknowledgment of her supporting role and of the authority
she enjoyed not only within the ruling family but in the
state as well.
3. Livia's status from A.D. 4 to 14
3.1 Public Persona
Livia's public persona in these years centers on the
image of the mother of the heir and on that of the helping
mother through her association, in coins and monuments, with
divinities such as Ceres, Bona Dea and Ops. Her association
with Demeter-Ceres began to be exploited more directly in
131
this period, probably on account of the wide appeal of this
mother-figure in both West and East. In a few cases, her
closeness to the divinity in question seems to imply shared
cult forms, while her association with Bona Dea and Ops was
more indirect and does not seem to have been cultivated
outside the boundaries of Italy.
Tiberius' adoption as the official successor enhanced
his mother's already semi-official role, adding that of
mother of the successor and grandmother of the princes to
the previous one of ruler's spouse. A number of monuments
in the West emphasize her unique position with respect to
the other women of the dynasty; probably the most
significant is the arch of Pavia in A.D. 7-8, where the
statue of Livia stood among those of the men of Augustus'
family, including the long-dead Gaius and Lucius. Livia's
was apparently the only female statue on the arch, and was
placed in a central position, along with those of Augustus
and Tiberius.1* Her semi-official titles are evident on
other inscriptions as well: on a mangled remnant from
Tarraco she is honored in her quality of grandmother of
Germanicus and Drusus. An altar in Sicily is dedicated to
her husband and to her also as mother of Tiberius, while at
Superaequum, in Central Italy, she is honored as mother of
Tiberius and Drusus. This latter inscription, found in a
veterans' colony, among the relics of Roman structures in a
locality still named "Arco d'Augusta," could be construed,
132
together with that on the arch of Pavia, as evidence of
precedents for the posthumous arch voted in her memory by
the Senate, arguing against Dio's statement that this was a
novel honor to a woman, particularly in the city of Rome.17
The dynastic closeness to husband and son was
advertised also on local coinages in the East: an issue of
Smyrna represents her as Aphrodite Stratonikes on the re-
verse, with Augustus and Tiberius facing each other on the
obverse. The date of issue falls between A.D. 4 and 14,
since Tiberius has the title of Caesar. This numismatic
issue seems to bear some similarity to earlier coins from
Tralles, in which Livia is portrayed as the local divinity
(Hecate) on the reverse, with Gaius Caesar on the obverse.
The example from Tralles is an earlier type,18 but there
too Livia appeared in association with the dynastic heir.
This was probably because, since Augustus had adopted Gaius
as son and heir, Livia had become Gaius' adoptive mother as
well.
The personal cult of Livia's Juno as patroness of
married life or in conjunction with the Genii of Augustus
and Tiberius is also well documented in this period. Statues
and statuettes of Livia and her male relatives were also set
up in a number of private lararia," the best known of
which is probably that of Ovid at Tomis.
For a while it was believed that the cult of the
Juno/Genius was included in that of the numen Augustum, an
133
Augustan novelty. Unlike the Geniusf the numen was an
entirely abstract entity, the quality that makes a divinity
divine and a human exceptional. Because of its extreme
abstraction, artistic representations of the numen were not
attempted, so that possibly for this reason the geographic
extension of this cult seemed limited at this time: aside
from the Ara dedicated by Tiberius in Rome (A.D. 6), other
examples of numen cult can be traced to Lepcis Magna,
Tarraco, Narbo. The celebrations at the ara Numinis Auausti
at Forum Clodii, often cited as evidence of the inclusion of
Genii and Juno, demonstrate the contrary, since the Genii of
Augustus and Tiberius had to be "invited" to participate in
the celebrations, during which the Juno of Livia was also
honored.20 The ara Numj.nis Auausti in Rome, dedicated by
Tiberius in A.D. 6, honored only Augustus' "divine inspi-
ration" to rule. Livia was subliminally included, not as
part of the Numen. but because the ceremony took place on
her wedding anniversary, a tribute to the part she played,
and continued to play, in her husband's "inspiration."
3.2 Honors and associations
In the following year (A.D. 7), more indirect tributes
to Livia are to be found in the altars of Ceres Mater and of
Ops Augusta. Although neither one specifically referred to
Livia, her association with Ceres was not completely new: in
the years between A.D. 4 and 14, a number of local coinages
portrayed her as Demeter, sometimes with local variations.
134
The most secure identification of Livia as Demeter appears
on the coinages of Tralles, in which her name is indicated
(Kalphaiotasigmaalpharhoiotatonosomeganu ?betaiotatonos?iotaalpha). The figure represents a standing Demehyphenminus
ter, carrying ears of wheat and poppies in the left hand and
an unidentifiable small object in the right hand. Near her
head is a crescent moon, interpreted as a reference to
Hecate, connected with Demeter in the eleusinian cult. In
many Sicilian coinages she appears both as Demeter and as
Persephone, crowned with barley instead of wheat. On Syrian
coins she receives the title of kappaalpharhopiomicronphiomicrontonosrhoomicronsigma1, while her own
coinages in Alexandria, during Augustus' years, associate
her with Eupsilontonosthetaetanuiotatonosalpha (abundance) and bear the image of a cornuhyphenminus
copia, or also a modius full of fruit and flowers, and
torches. The Eupsilontonosthetaetanuiotatonosalpha issues, with modius or with oak wreath
and date, belong to the years between A.D. 9hyphenminus10, and appear
repeatedly until A.D. 12hyphenminus13.21 Bithynian coinages issued
by the proconsul Marcus Granius Marcellus in the late
Augustan years show Augustus and Livia on the obverse and an
enthroned female on the reverse, holding a cornucopia but
without attribute in her right hand. There is no clear
indication here that the figure refers to Livia or is meant
to be Livia, since there were no sitting portraits of her
before the death of Augustus. On the other hand, the
presence of the familiar cornucopia, as well as Livia's
portrait on the obverse, may well suggest some association.
Finally, the Pergamene issues of Menogenes also show a sithyphenminus
135
ting Demeter on the reverse, holding a sceptre and ears of
wheat. Although the inscription ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauetatonos Piepsilonrhogammaalpha?etanuomegatonosnu indihyphenminus
cates that this coinage is probably early Tiberian, Gross
confidently affirms that the type of representation is still
late Augustan, and places these issues at the very beginning
of Tiberius' rule.22
In the West, the mint of Lugdunum produces also
coinages with LiviahyphenminusCeres on the reverse in the years A.D.
11hyphenminus13; according to Gross, the Ceres coinages are those that
most certainly refer to Livia, and were possibly inspired by
the dedication of the ara Cereris Matris. The symbols of
Ceres are the nuptial torches (with or without snakes),
wreaths of poppies and grain (wheat, barley), the
cornucopia. A few of these attributes, such as snakes and
cornucopia, are common to another divinity associated with
Livia in these years, Bona Dea. The snakes symbolize
different concepts, ranging from the Juno/Genius to
fertility, chastity and healing. The cornucopia is an
attribute of Bona Dea, who protected the Roman state and the
fertility of the women. She also protected the fields in
general (Aarestis^ and the granaries, so that in some parts
of the empire she was connected with Ceres (Bona Dea
Cereria, Aquileia) and Mater Magna (Mater Magna Cereria,
also in Aquileia). The rituals of Bona Dea seem to have
been related to those of Ceres: in both cults the presence
of men was (supposedly) taboo, and later writers such as
136
Macrobius identify Bona Dea as Proserpina.23 From agricul-
tural divinity of plebeian origin, Ceres had extended her
patronage over marriage: both agriculture and marriage
clearly represented means of regulating and controlling
nature, to submit her to man's civilizing purposes. In
Rome, as in the greek Thesmophoria, the rites of Ceres-
Demeter were practiced by women and intended to control
their public and private behavior, through the prerequisite
chastity, fasting and sexual abstinence. Bona Dea also
emphasized chastity in her own mythology and tradition: it
is therefore easy to see why Augustus was so keen on
revitalizing these cults. Under Augustus, Ceres usurps
Juno's role as protectress of marriage, but she also becomes
special patron of the countryside and of the provinces,
populated by those farmers whose crops and numerous families
sustained the city and the empire. Nevertheless, while
idealizing and honoring these social classes (women and
small farmers) by using peaceful rural life and values as a
foil to the corruption of urban life, Augustus also success-
fully marginalized them, since it was in the City that
political decisions were taken.24
The links created in Augustan times between Ceres,
originally a divinity of the plebs, and Bona Dea, associated
by most literary sources with the aristocracy of the
republic, are evident in the calendar, in the ritual and in
Augustus7 household. The mysteries of Bona Dea took place
137
in early December, a month devoted to festivals honoring the
divinities of the earth, all of which received sacrifices of
pregnant sows (Tellus, Ceres, Proserpina), and with whom the
??agrarian" version of Bona Dea shared attributes. Li via, as
previously mentioned, was by family tradition a devotee of
Bona Dea, whose temple she restored: one of her freedwomen,
Philematio, is referred to as sacerdos a Bona Peg, an
unusual title which may perhaps indicate the existence of a
sodality under Bona Dea's protection among Livia's slaves
and freedmen.2S
Livia was also associated with Bona Dea in Forum
Clodii, where?from A.D. 18?her birthday was celebrated by
the women of the local quarter of the Bona Dea, probably a
collegium.26 With her marriage to Augustus she had brought
an aristocratic republican divinity into the household gods
of the representative of the plebs, thus symbolizing the
union of nobility and common people in the concordia ordinum
under the new rule.
Less clear, at first sight, is the connection between
Livia and Ops. This divinity had been part of the Roman
pantheon since republican times and was originally
associated with agricultural abundance. Ennius and the
early Latin writers had made her the companion of Saturn,
and turned her into the ancestress of the Olympian dynasty,
following a euhemeristic model; nevertheless, the goddess
lacked a distinct personality and a clear identity, as
138
evidenced by the scarcity of iconographical representations.
Caesar had revamped her fortunes by depositing (his) public
treasure in her temple. In those times, as appears from
Cicero's writings, the concept of Ops had been updated,
evolving from its agricultural roots to a more generalized
idea of auxiliumf so that she became protectress of
abundance by whichever means it came (commerce, real estate,
etc.). This more general idea of protection remained valid
in Augustus' time, and it was put to the service of his
regime and of his family.27
The consecration of the altar to Ceres Mater and Ops
Augusta took place in chronological proximity to the
festival of the Volcanalia, in August, the month in which a
number of important events in the career of Rome's ruler
were also commemorated. With the title opifera (bringer of
help), Ops is mentioned in the calendar of the Arvales under
the entry for 23 August, feast of the Volcanalia. Ops was
honored in her primitive area at the borders of the Forum,
near the Volcanal and the temple of Saturn, at the same time
as a number of other deities, Vulcan, Saturn, the Nymphs,
Maia and Hora, each one in different parts of town. The
array of divinities symbolized a combination of earth and
water, emblematic of the help solicited by Augustus in his
struggle to protect the city from fires and famine. In A.D.
7 their auxilium was vital to Augustus, who had taken over
the duties of the annona since 22 B.C: the years between
139
A.D. 5 and 8 had been marred by famine caused by grain
shortages, so that Augustus had had to resort to double
distributions of food. The combination Ops Augusta?the
adjective underscoring the source of this blessing?and
Ceres Mater assumes in this context a strong propagandistic
flavor, enlisting the divine help to enable the prince to
provide the Romans with their daily bread.2?
Ops shared some characteristics with Bona Deai the
adjective opiferaf an Augustan innovation, was used for both
divinities. Furthermore, according to Macrobius, Bona Dea
was one of the names of Ops, since her help was essential to
life. Therefore, their characteristics overlap to a certain
degree, although further epigraphical evidence demonstrates
that the two divinities were not interchangeable.2*
The idea of Ops bringing a widely defined assistance,
essential to life, and of Ops bringing assistance against
fires threatening life, property and food staples, supplies
a roundabout route to connect this divinity and Livia. As
discussed in Chapter Two,30 Livia was involved in various
activities promoting the welfare of the Roman family, using
her vast patrimony to supply material incentives in support
of her husband's family reforms. Thus, her range of action
included activities that combined the notions of motherhood
and of assistance (Mater and Ops): her portrait appeared on
tesserae for grain distribution, she helped support needy
children, gave dowries to daughters of impoverished
140
families. She also lent active help when fires broke out,
either by directing the operations or by succouring the
victims. That her involvement on such occasions was
customary is indicated by Suetonius' remark: et ipsam
intervenisse populumque et milites, quo enixius opem fer-
rent. adhortatam, sicut sub marito solita esset (Suet. Tib.
50-51). Aid given during fires was especially welcome in a
city such as Rome, where most buildings were made of wood.
Being able to offer this type of aid could be exploited to
gain political popularity with the masses, which were more
easily victimized by sudden outbreaks. Witness to this the
case of Egnatius Rufus, one of the early conspirators
against Augustus: he had formed a private militia of fire-
fighters and had ensured the gratitude and support of the
plebs, through which he became praetor in 21 B.C. His
excessive popularity eventually ruined him, but suggested to
Augustus another way of reaping political benefits by
organizing corps of fire-fighters in the various districts
of the city." Aside from Suetonius and Dio's comments on
Livia's involvement in this very specific type of
assistance, we do not have other types of records that would
permit us to establish the extent of her activity. What
makes this scrap of evidence noteworthy is that it
represents Livia as openly intruding in an otherwise
masculine sphere (hence Tiberius' annoyance): this seems
certainly an unusual behavior in a woman who made a career
141
of standing discreetly behind her male relatives. Even more
important to the effects of this discussion is the fact that
this scanty record permits us to establish the nature of the
connection between Livia and Ops Augusta.
The examination of archeological evidence indicates
that in these years the association between Livia and Ceres-
Demeter is emphasized and advertised in a number of ways,
from monuments to numismatics. The aspects of motherhood
and prosperity, suggested by the figure of Ceres, are
connected with the concept of benevolent assistance
promoting life, suggested by Bona Dea and Ops. However,
while the ideological closeness of Ceres-Demeter and Livia
could be widely exploited, that between Livia and Ops seems
to have enjoyed a more localized appeal (within the city of
Rome). As for Livia's connection with Bona Dea, this also
seemed to spread to areas geographically closer to Rome
(Forum Clodii), rather than uniformly throughout the empire.
4. Cult
It is sometimes difficult to assess the chronology of
Livia's titles and attributes, given the fragmentary
condition of inscriptions and lack of other indications on
coins. The commonly held view, which bases her chronology
on the change of name from Livia to Julia Augusta, helps
only up to a point, since some later cult inscriptions,
ranging from after A.D. 15 to the end of the first century,
still refer to her as Livia. Such is the case with an
142
inscription from Galatia from Galba's time, in which
offerings are made to the goddess Livia, the goddess Roma
and Augustus; one from Elea, in which People and Senate
dedicate statues to the deified Caesar, Livia Augusta and
Augustus; another from Chios which mentions a priestess for
life of the august goddess Aphrodite Livia. Most of these
examples come from the East, one from the West. Given the
above, the chronological points in the development of her
cult must be approximate.32
Some evidence, mostly numismatic, gives indication of
early cultic honors paid locally to Livia: the words Qea and
dea accompany or precede the name of Livia, on coinages from
Clazomenae which honor Augustus as founder and the goddess
Livia. Gross believes this issue to have originated after
the earthquake of 12 B.C., which explains the title kappatauiotatonossigmatauetasigma1
given to Augustus on account of his support in rebuilding
the city. Livia's title implies cult, probably as
epsilonupsilondieresisepsilonrhogammaepsilontonostauiotasigma1, as it is spelled out, for instance, on a more or
less contemporary inscription from Thasos, evidence of some
form of cultic honor going back to Livia's visit East (Julia
is also mentioned, but not as a divinity). To this group
can be added another inscription from Asia Minor (?iota?iotatonosalphanu
thetaepsilonalphatonosnu gammaupsilonnualphaiotatonoskappaalpha . . . Kalphaiotatonossigmaalpharhoomicronsigma1 thetaepsilonomicronupsilontonos ?upsilondieresis 1940.184) since the
wording refers to her as wife of the emperor Augustus, son
of the deified Caesar, a formula similar to other early
inscriptions. Coinage from Lesbos also refers to thetaepsilonalphatonos
143
?iotaomicronupsilontonosiotaalpha, while in the West some evidence is found in the
Greekhyphenminusspeaking parts of Italy. Coinages from Thessalonika
and Methymna follow the same pattern, unless the caption is
interpreted as theta?thetaupsilontonos or?possibly?as the initial of an
ethnic name.33
In other parts of the Empire, Livia is "assimilated" to
particular divinities by assuming some of their attributes,
or by "impersonating" them, dressed in the garb typical of
the divinity in question. Into this category fall the cult
honors to LiviahyphenminusDemeterhyphenminusHecate in Tralles. Gross and
Grether assume that the image on the coin represents a local
cult statue of LiviahyphenminusHecate. At Smyrna she was assimilated
to Aphrodite Stratonikes, a tradition later followed by
Drusilla and Poppaea. The image on the reverse of the coin
seems to reproduce a cult statue.34
Early issues from Pergamon, dating back to shortly
after her voyage east, identify her with Hera on the
obverse, Julia with Aphrodite on the reverse. HerahyphenminusLivia
appears also on coinages of the Thessalian League and from
Eumenea, the latter a smaller denomination apparently issued
by a local benefactress.15
Both assimilation and identification, the forms of
comparison to divinities illustrated in the specimen
mentioned above, do not suggest divine nature or outright
divinization, which could be achieved only through
apotheosis. They are rather steps taken as preparation for
144
divinization, meant to lift the honorand above the human
level without yet assigning him or her to the divine
sphere.3<s
At this point, a few comments are also necessary with
regard to the possible chronology of the title of ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauetatonos.
It is commonly believed that Livia took the title of ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauetatonos
at the same time that she was granted that of Augusta, of
which it is the literal translation. There are, however, a
few odd archeological and numismatic pieces, some mentioned
above, that make this classification problematic.
Admittedly the counterhyphenminusevidence supplied by the pieces in
question is sometimes dubious, nevetheless there are
instances that seem to imply a possible use of the title
even before Augustus' death. The problem arises from the
difficulty of recognizing the identity of Livia's partner,
simply named ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauomicrontonossigma1 on some coins. That usage enables
scholars to place some issues before A.D. 14. Even less
clear is the inclusion of Livia among the ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauomicroniotatonos: the
error originated from a misreading of legends in coins from
Smyrna and Magnesia, which actually have ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauomegatonosiota. The
legend in question does not refer to Livia, although she
appears with Augustus in double portrait. In the other
cases reported the doubts arise because Livia's partner
cannot be identified.37
Not surprisingly, the instances discussed above of
cult honors for Livia originated in the Hellenized parts of
145
the empire, where the tradition of special honors to both
civic benefactors and rulers was well established. The
Greek language did not have a specific word for cult of
benefactors: tauiota?etatonos covers a wide semantic area, which inhyphenminus
cludes "worship" as well as "honor." Thus, honors granted
to the divinities differed only in terms of degree from
those granted to benefactors, not in kind. iotatonossigmaomicrontonosthetaepsilonomicroniota eta?alphaiotatonos
may be offered to civic benefactors, but did not mean divine
honors; rather, they implied that the honors were similar to
those tributed to the godshyphenminus Because of their position and
function in society, rulers occupied an intermediate stage
between civic benefactors and divinities. As such, honors
as civic epsilonupsilonepsilonrhogammaepsilontonostauepsilonsigma1 may not be sufficient: thetaepsilonomicroniotatonos epsilonupsilonepsilonrhogammaepsilontonostauepsilonsigma1
expressed more suitably the rulers' exalted, abovehyphenminushuman
position as benefactors who bestowed concrete benefits on
the community. Yet the term thetaepsilonomicrontonossigma1 did not refer to the
ruler's divine nature; it indicated his/her privileged
status and it implied cult.3? Thus, it is possible to
trace the progress of Livia's cult from exalted patroness?
responsible for practical benefits to individual communihyphenminus
ties?to embodiment of the virtues and attributes of the
divine consort (Hera) and of the bountiful mother (Demeter).
Demeter in particular, when associated with Livia and the
successors (Gaius, then Tiberius) suggested the idea that
Livia, mother of Augustus' heir, helped to maintain the
conditions for the peace and stability of the empire.
146
Conclusion
These years crown the efforts of Livia as a mother to
secure her son's, and her own, political and perhaps even
physical survival after Augustus' death. By and large her
efforts met with success: the wisdom of the political choice
that destiny and Livia foisted on Augustus was advertised
far and wide by the monuments of the regime. With her ever-
growing personal wealth, Livia was able to support her
husband's policies to promote family life and prosperity:
these years see her increasingly associated with Ceres-
Demeter, the patroness of agriculture and of fruitful and
chaste women. Nevertheless, at the death of Augustus the
political situation was far from stable, and the assassina-
tion of Agrippa Postumus offered Tiberius' political rivals
the opportunity to fabricate and circulate stories suggest-
ing the illegitimacy of his claims. Augustus' selection of
Tiberius as successor at the expense of his own closer kin
was attributed to Livia's wiles and ultimately to murder at
her urging. From bountiful Mother of the dynasty and of the
state Livia would eventually be seen as the hateful step-
mother of the house of the Caesars.
147
Notes to Chapter Three
1. Tac. Ann. 1.3.3, Dio 55.10A.10 on Livia's suspected
involvement in the deaths of Gaius and Lucius. Tac. Ann.
4.57.3, Suet. Tib. 51 on Livia's reproaches to Tiberius.
Suet. Tib. 23, the preamble to Augustus' will. Cf. B.
Levick, "Atrox Fortuna," CR 22 (1972), pp. 309-311, refuting
the common opinion that the testament clause was meant as an
insult to Tiberius.
2. Suet. Tib. 15.2 on Germanicus' adoption prior to
Tiberius' own. Cf. B. Levick, "Drusus Caesar and the Adop-
tions of A. D. 4," Latomus 25 (1966), pp. 227-244, esp. pp.
228, 232, on Germanicus' adoption, p. 233, n. 2 on the date
of Germanicus' marriage, pp. 239-244 on Germanicus and
Drusus' careers. At pp. 232-234 Levick discusses the corre-
spondent functions of the pairs Gaius-Lucius/Germanicus-
Drusus, and observes that Drusus?in addition to marrying
Livilla, formerly betrothed to Gaius?may have been regard-
ed, with Germanicus, as princeps iuventutis. Dio, 56.17,
56.25.4, 56.28.1 on Germanicus and Drusus' advancements.
Cf. also R. Seager, Tiberius (Berkeley, 1972), p. 37 on
Germanicus' adoption; M. Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas
(Cambridge, 1946), p. 268 on provincial coinages celebrating
Germanicus' adoption, and B. Levick, Tiberius the Politi-
cian (London, 1976), pp. 49-50.
3. Suet. Aug. 65, Dio 55.13.1 on popular agitations for
Julia's recall. Dio, 55.22.3, 23.1, 26, 28-29 on disasters
and famine. Dio, 55.27 on revolutionary plans. Tac. Ann.
1.3.4, Dio, 55.3 2.1 on Agrippa Postumus' uncouth character.
Cf. also B. Levick, Tiberius (above, n. 2), pp. 57-60; S.
Jameson, "Augustus and Agrippa Postumus," Historia 24
(1975), pp. 287-314. Cf, also J. H. Corbett "The Succession
Policy of Augustus," Latomus 33 (1974), pp. 87-97; D. C. A.
Shotter, "Julians, Claudians and the Accession of Tiberius,"
Latomus 30 (1971), pp. 1117-1123 on the succession to
Augustus. Cf. M. Pani, Tendenze politiche della successione
al principato di Augusto (Bari, 1979) on the unstable situa-
tion at the accession of Tiberius and on the milieu of the
Julias, Germanicus and Agrippina.
4. Tac. Ann. 3.24 on D. Silanus. Ovid Tris. 1.3 on his own
relegation. Cf. B. Levick, Tiberius (above, n. 2), p. 55,
and "The Fall of Julia the Younger," Latomus 35 (1976), p.
305 on Julia's connections. Cf. E. Meise, Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte der Julisch-Claudischen Dynastie (Munich,
1969), p. 42 on the destruction of her lavish villa: in
republican times this was the punishment for those who
committed crimes against the state. As for Aem. Paullus'
execution, the ancient sources are not clear: they simply
148
list his name among those of many conspirators against
Augustus. The assumption of his execution is based on
information culled from a scholium to Juv. 6.158. Syme,
(History in Ovid [Oxford 1978], pp. 137, 209hyphenminus211) does not
believe Paullus was executed.
5. Tacitus (Ann. 1.6) represents the decision to murder
Agrippa as the first ominous deed of the new princeps and of
his mother. Yet, Tiberius' alleged fiction, i.e., that
Augustus' had ordered that in his testament, does not sound
improbable, and has been accepted by Syme (Roman Revolution
[Oxford 1939], p. 439) and E. Hohl (Hermes 70, [1935], p.
350). The fact that Tiberius was ready to have the Senate
examine the deed should be constructed as proof of his lack
of involvement. The murder probably was authorized by the
zealous Sallustius Crispus: cf. S. Jameson (above, n. 3), p.
314.
6. Dio 56.26.1, 56.28.1: Germanicus and Drusus were allowed
to be consuls without having served as praetores first.
Tac. Ann. 1.5.1, Dio 56.30.1 interpret the visit to Planasia
as a reconciliation; B. Levick, Tiberius (above, n. 2), p.
65, and "Drusus Caesar" (above, n. 2), p. 242, n. 3 implies
that Augustus decided Agrippa's death. R. Seager (above, n.
2), p. 49, also agrees on Augustus' decision to eliminate
Agrippa, and sees the absence of Agrippa's name from the
testament as proof that Augustus had decided that his grandhyphenminus
son should not survive him. S. Jameson (above, n. 3), pp.
304hyphenminus310, argues that Agrippa was not mentioned because he
had been completely disinherited due to a sentence of aqua
et igni interdictio, passed by the Senate against him at
Augustus' behest (Suet. Aug. 65).
7. Pliny the Elder, Nu. H. 7.45.150, Plut. Mor. 3 ("De_
Garrulitate" 11) imply doubts concerning the trip. H.
Willrich, Livia (Leipzig 1911), p. 28 n. 1; M. P.
Charlesworth, "Tiberius and the Death of Augustus," AJP 44
(1923), pp. 149hyphenminus150; C. Questa, "La Morte di Augusto secondo
Cassio Dione," La Parola del Passato 54 (1959), pp. 43hyphenminus44;
R. Syrae (above, n. 4), pp. 150hyphenminus151 express skepticism with
reference to the trip. B. Levick, Tiberius (above, n. 2),
pp. 64hyphenminus65; M. Pani (above, n. 3), p. 81; S. Jameson (above,
n. 3), p. 310 believe the story partially. The document in
the Acta Fratrum Arvalium is quoted and discussed by M. Pani
(above, n. 3), p. 81 and S. A. Jameson (above, n. 3), p.
310.
8. Pliny, Nu. H. 7.45.150; Plutarch Moralia 3, "De
Garrulitate." On Arria and Paetus, Pliny, Epist. 3.16,
Martial 1.13. See C. Questa (above, n. 7), pp. 43hyphenminus44.
149
9. Cf. R. H. Martin "Tacitus and the Death of Augustus," CO.
5 (1955), pp. 123hyphenminus128 for the fashioning of Augustus' death
on that of Claudius in the Annales. Pliny, Nu. H. 7.46.150
on Livia and Tiberius' apprehension. Ovid, Fasti 6.804,
praise of Marcia, and Ex Pon. 3.1.77, 1.2. The
circumstances of Fabius Maximus' death were unclear: Tacitus
(Ann. 1.5.2: dubium an quaesita mortem typically insinuates.
Plutarch (Moralia 3) gives a highly unreliable account, with
the wrong name of Maximus and contaminating the episode with
that of the death of Arria and Paetus. On the existence of
a tradition hostile to Tiberius and favorable to Germanicus
prior to Tacitus, cf. G. A. Harrer, "Tacitus and Tiberius,"
AJP (1920), pp. 57hyphenminus68, and M. P. Charlesworth (above, n. 7),
pp. 146hyphenminus147, and 154 for Agrippina's hand in perpetuating
the rumors; with reference to the latter, cf. also C. Questa
(above, n. 7), p. 52 n. 30.
10. Suet. Aua. 98, 99, lib. 21.
11. Dio 56.30.1 on Augustus poisoned by the figs. Cf. C.
Questa (above, n. 7), pp. 48hyphenminus49 nn. 19, 20 for the mythic
and fictitious elements concerning poisoned fruit and for
the chthonic associations of figs in particular. Tac. Ann.
1.5.4, Dio 56.31.1 on Livia's part. H. Willrich (above, n.
7), p. 29, n. 1, p. 33; M. P. Charlesworth (above, n. 7),
pp. 152hyphenminus153; R. H. Martin (above, n. 9), p. 124; C. Questa
(above, n. 7), pp. 50, 52 n. 29 reject the stories about
Livia's meddling.
12. See Seager (above, n. 2), p. 49; Levick, Tiberius
(above, n. 2), p. 65; Syme (above, n. 5), p. 439.
13. Tac. Ann. 2.39 on Clemens' designs, 2.40.3 his end and
the support of influential people; cf. also Suet. Tib. 25
and Dio 57.16.3. M. Pani (above, n. 3), pp. 56hyphenminus58: Clemens'
movement may have been revolutionary and truly monarchic,
opposed to Tiberius' more conservative and Senatehyphenminusoriented
approach. See also Seager (above, n. 2), p. 93, on Tiberius'
possible reasons for dispatching Clemens in secret.
14. Dio 56.34, Suet. Aug. 100 on the funeral. Livy
was called "Pompeian" by Augustus for his republicanism
(Tac. Ann? 4.34). Cf. Syme (above, n. 5), pp. 50hyphenminus51, 317hyphenminus
318 on the "recycling" of Pompey's image. Cf. also H.
Chantraine, "Der tote Herrscher in der Politik der romischen
Kaiserzeit," GWU 2 (1988), pp. 67hyphenminus80, especially at p. 72.
15. H. Chantraine (above, n. 14), p. 72. This is also the
source of Tiberius' occasionally puzzling and unpredictable
behavior, stemming from the conflict between his own hearthyphenminus
felt dislike of hereditary rule and the inevitability of it.
Cf. Seager (above, n. 2), p. 57 and Levick's discussion
150
(above, eta. 2), pp. 76hyphenminus81. Cf. S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage
(Oxford, 1991), p. 490 on the duration of the funerals.
16. The inscriptions at the base of the statues recorded
the names of the honorands and their ties of kinship (CIL
5.6416).
17. CIL 2.3102 (Tarraco); CIL 10.7340 (Sicily); CIL 9.3304
(Superaequum). W. Lebeck, "Ehrenbogen," ZPE (1991), pp.
49hyphenminus50. Posthumous honorary arches, single or multiple,
topped by a statue of the honorand or by a group of statues
representing family members, were an Augustan innovation to
honor important dead. Drusus the Elder had apparently been
the first to whom a funeral arch had been voted by the
Senate. On the other hand, Octavian had received honorary
arches from the Senate and the People in appreciation for
ending the civil wars.
18. RPC 1.2, n. 2467, BMC Ionia, p. 268, nn. 259hyphenminus261
(Smyrna); RPC 1.2, n. 2647hyphenminus2648, BMC Lydia, p. 344, 117hyphenminus120
(Tralles). W. H. Gross, Julia Augusta (Gottingen, 1962), p.
37.
19. CIL 8.16457 (ElhyphenminusLehs), CIL 11.3076 (Falerii). Ovid,
Epist. Ex Pontof 2.8; 4.9. Cf. G. Grether "Livia and the
Roman Imperial Cult," AJP 67 (1946), pp. 225hyphenminus226. See also
Chapter Two of this study on the cult of the Juno of Livia.
20. L. R. Taylor, "Tiberius' Ovatio and the Ara Numinis
Augusti," AJP 58 (1937), p. 189: the Numen Auqustum was
supposed to be a collective divinity including the Genii of
Augustus and Tiberius and the Juno of Livia, unlike the
Numen Augusti which referred only to Augustus. Cf. D.
Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West (Leiden,
1987), vol. 2 part 1, pp. 378, 380 n. 23.
21. BMC Sicily, p. 125 (Panormus); BMC Lydia, p. 344, RPC
vol. 1 part 2, nn. 2647hyphenminus2648 (Tralles); BMC Mysia, p. 140
(Pergamon). In many instances, prehyphenminusAugustan Sicilian
coinages show Demeter crowned with wheat and corn (BMC
Sicily, Leontini, p. 93 nn. 59, 62, 66; Menaeum, p. 97 n.
1), while Persephone is crowned with barley (Gela, p. 75 nn.
84hyphenminus85; Entella, p. 60 n. 4). In some cases Demeter on the
obverse holds torch and sceptre, Persephone on obverse
crowned with barley (Acrae, p. 2 n. 2), while in others
Demeter wears earrings, necklace and barley crown (Enna p.
58 eta. 2); even Isis appears with these attributes (Syracuse,
p. 704). L. Robert QMS 2.807, n. 2 on Syrian coins. RPC
vol. 1 part 1, pp. 692hyphenminus694 on Egyptian issues.
22. W. H. Gross (above, n. 18), p. 28. BMC Mysia, p. 140;
cf. also Gross, p. 40.
151
23. Gross (above, eta. 18), p. 14 on positive identification
of LiviahyphenminusCeres. Cf. Kataloa Alexandrinischer Kaisermunzen
der SaminlunQ des Instituts fur Altertumskunde der
Universitat Koln, Band 1, p. 24 n. 38, and BMC Alexandria,
p. 4 for Livia's Alexandrian coinages. Cf. H. H. J.
Brouwer, Bona Pea, (Leiden 1989), p. 348, and A.
Greifenhagen "Bona Dea" EM 52 (1937), pp. 227hyphenminus244 on the
characteristics of the goddess. Cic. De Leaibus 2.9.21 on
the nocturnal rites. Ancient literary sources are at odds
with epigraphical evidence, which indicates a number of men,
although smaller than that of the women, as worshippers of
the goddess. See Brouwer, pp. 256, 258, 276; identification
with Proserpina, pp. 418hyphenminus19.
24. I. Chirassi Colombo, "Funzioni Politiche ed
Implicazioni Cultural! nell'Ideologia Religiosa di Ceres
nell'Impero Romano," ANRW 2.17.1, pp. 418hyphenminus423, 428. Cf.
Brouwer (above, n. 23), pp. 324hyphenminus325.
25. Brouwer (above, n. 23), pp. 351hyphenminus352, 378; CIL 6.2240.
26. CIL 11.3303; Brouwer (above, n. 23), p. 374.
27. P. Pouthier, Ops et la Conception Divine de 1/Abondance
dans la Religion Romaine jusqu'a la Mort d/Auguste (Rome,
1981), pp. 225hyphenminus226.
28. Dio, 55.22.3, 26.1, 31.3; Suet. Aug. 42. Cf. Pouthier
(above, n. 27), pp. 287hyphenminus293.
29. Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.12.10. Cf. Pouthier (above, n.
27), pp. 179hyphenminus181; Mu 1961, pp. 9hyphenminus10, n. 45.
30. Cf. Chapter Two, parts 1 and 2, of this study.
31. Suet. Tib. 50hyphenminus51, Dio, 57.16.2 on Livia's involvement
during fires. Dio, 53.24.4 on Egnatius Rufus. Suet. Aug.
30.1, Dio 55.8.7 on the creation of urban cohortes.
32. A.E. 1933.2, A.J5. 1970.594, S_?G 15.532, CIL 6.1.1815
(inscription by a freedwoman of the Diva Livia Augusta).
33. Gross (above, n. 18), p. 34. BMC Ionia, p. 31 n. 119,
RPC vol. 1 part 2, n. 2496 (Clazomenae); IGR 1.835
(Thasos); ??? 24.212 (Eleusis), S?? 23.472 (Dodona).
Mionnet 3.39, n. 55; CIL 10.7464 (Haluntium, Sicily); CIL
10.8042 (Campania): fragment of tegula bearing the stamp
Daae Liviae; RPC 1.2, n. 1563 (Thessalonika), n. 2338
(Methymna).
152
34. Fishwick (above, eta. 20) vol. 1 part 1, p. 29 on divine
assimilations. Gross (above, n. 18), p. 41 and Grether
(above, n. 19), p. 231 n. 48 on cult statue of Livia. RPC
1.2, nn. 2647hyphenminus8, BMC Lydia, p. 341 (Tralles); RPC 1.2, n.
2467, BMC Ionia, pp. 267hyphenminus8, n. 254 (Smyrna). In both cases
the name of Livia is clearly identifiable.
35. BMC Mysia, p. 139, nn. 248hyphenminus9 (Livia and Julia); RPC
vol. 1 part 2, n. 1427 and n. 3143 (LiviahyphenminusHera).
36. Fishwick (above, n. 20), vol. 1 part 1, pp. 29, 40.
37. Cf. Mionnet's coinages of ?iota?iotatonosalpha ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauetatonos quoted by L.
Ollendorff, "Livia" RE Bd 13 (Stuttgart, 1927), col. 913,
and discussed by w. Ritter in "Livias Erhebung zur Augusta,"
Chiron 2 (1972), p. 316 nn. 17hyphenminus18. Cf. also Grether (above,
n. 19), p. 241 n. 110. RPC vol. 1 part 1, p. 50 for the
discussion of the identity of Livia's partner. Ritter
suggests that the attribution of some coins to before A. D.
14 may be possible for coinages that have no indication of
the officials who issued them. Grant (above, n. 2), p. 463
believes the ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauomicrontonossigma1 to refer to Augustus, which would
enable one to see Livia as the ?epsilon&alphasigmatauetatonos on the coinages where
they appear together. The examination of the portraits,
however, does not allow this interpretation, according to
the authors of RPC vol. 1 part 1, p. 50. Cf. BMC Ionia, nn.
254hyphenminus258, BMC Lydia, p. 144, n. 44hyphenminus46 and Gross (above,
n.18), p. 26. Cf. also Ritter p. 317 n. 18.
38. Fishwick (above, n. 20), vol. 1 part 1, pp. 21, 27hyphenminus28,
33hyphenminus34.
Chapter Four
The Augusta
This chapter has as its objects the consolidation of
Livia's power and influence during the Tiberian years, as
well as the unresolved contradictions resulting from the
presence of a powerful Mother at the top of the hierarchy in
an avowed patriarchal society. The authority enjoyed by
Livia as Julia Augusta had social, as well as religious and
political character: on the one hand, she was a princeps
femina. pinnacle of the ordo matronarum,1 on the other, she
was regarded as Parens/Mater Patriae and Genetrix Orbisf
extreme magnifications of the moral authority of the
materfamilias. As mother of the dynasty and of the country,
Livia officially supported and assisted her son's policies:
as mother of Tiberius, she struggled with her son to fulfil
her own ambition to rule. Domestic and personal contrasts
between mother and son mingled with the dynastic struggles
of Agrippina and Livilla, exacerbated by the deaths of
Germanicus and Drusus and by the maneuvers of Sejanus.
1. The Augusta
In the past much emphasis has been placed on the
"Hellenistic" elements of Livia's new distinction as
Augusta. Because the figure of a visibly authoritative
queen mother appeared alien to Roman tradition, scholarship
has tended to regard the conferment of Augustus' title on
153
154
Livia as being derived from foreign models. More recent
studies seem to have relinquished the idea, partly because
Livia's power was of a different nature (sacral but not
divine, unlike that of Ptolemaic queens like Arsinoe and
Berenice), but also because new light has been shed on the
figure of the Roman mother and her position within family
and society. Therefore, it is safe to state that the model
on which the Augusta's role rests is closer to that of the
Roman mother than of a Hellenistic queen in disguise.2
If one accepts that Augustus' new regime was a sort of
family faction writ large?wherein the First Family resulted
from a victorious struggle against other family factions?
then Livia's privileged position appears not to contradict
Roman tradition, but responds rather to the internal logic
of the family system. The Roman mother, more than the wife,
enjoyed great prestige in practice and tradition, even if
legally subordinate to male authority. Chapter Five of this
study examines the role of the matron and mother as educator
of the children, teacher of traditional morality and of
family history. Her influence over her children continued,
despite divorce and remarriage, well into their adulthood
and maturity, and concerned not only personal choices, but
also economical and political matters. She exercised a sort
of "moral mentorship" over her sons, which increased
considerably if she became a widow. Such mentorship was
generally viewed with approval, as long as her ambition was
155
not publicly flaunted.3
It is much more difficult to find a comparable mother
figure in the social history of Greek and Hellenistic
culture, where the mother never enjoyed the same public
prestige as in Rome. Consequently, there did not seem to
exist a definite role model for Hellenistic queens, unless
one went back to the Homeric Arete. Although Hellenistic
rulers share some characteristics with Augustus, the pa-
rental character is missing, aside from the purely dynastic
element. Generally, king and queen were the parents of the
heir to the throne, but this aspect did not extend to the
parenthood of the country, unlike Augustus' rule. On the
other hand, Hellenistic monarchs were active as benefactors;
the king was the political, military and religious leader,
much like Augustus, while the queen should be noted for her
wisdom, virtue and dignity, as Livia was."
As Mother of the Country Livia fulfilled a highly
symbolic task, which was far from being purely ornamental,
although deprived of the accoutrements of power (command of
the army, tribunicia potestasl: hers was a moral power that
arose from ancient Roman traditions. She was adopted into
the Julians through testamentary provision, her inheritance
of a major portion of Augustus' estate having been antici-
pated through previous exemption from the Voconian law. The
most unusual feature of Augustus' testament was the
transmission to Livia of his own title along with his own
156
family's name, undoubtedly the first instance of an
honorific title bequeathed to a woman.
Surprisingly, the main historical and literary sources
simply register the fact without further comment. This
attitude seems puzzling, considering that the ambiguity
inherent in the legacy generated a variety of contrasting
interpretations, by Livia herself and her contemporaries, as
well as by more recent scholars. Yet the lack of reactions
in the ancient sources is perplexing.
Suetonius makes clear that the title of Augustus had
assumed a dynastic meaning in addition to the original
honorific and religious character: Augustus' veto of honor-
ific titles for Tiberius after the Illyrian campaign was due
to the fact that Tiberius would eventually inherit his own
title. The adoption of Livia into the Julians, designed to
strengthen Tiberius' position as head of the dynasty,
demonstrates Augustus' keen awareness of the dangers of
factional strife within the family: as such, the adoption
was a sufficiently momentous event, witness the ara
adoptionis voted by the Senate to commemorate the occasion.
Even so, the possibilities that would emerge after his death
must have appeared gloomy, if Augustus felt that he must
bequeath her a title clearly indicating his political suc-
cessor. Modern interpretations regarding the nature of
Livia's task originally followed the theory of joint rule
expounded by Mommsen and Korneraann, while Wilamowitz saw it
157
instead as mere decoration. More recently, W. Ritter has
tried to steer a middle course between the two currents,
highlighting the transformation of Hellenistic elements into
a form more acceptable to Roman sensibilities.5
Livia's adoption made her Tiberius' legal sister: this,
on the one hand, may be similar to the position of a woman
married in manu. while on the other the inheritance of a
title on the part of brother and sister alike is an element
common to Hellenistic monarchies. Yet, the heirs of
Hellenistic monarchs inherited equal rights along with the
title, whereas Livia's were limited: unlike her Hellenistic
(particularly Ptolemaic) counterparts; however, she could
not be commander-in-chief, nor could she address the Senate,
since she had neither imperium nor tribunicia potestas. and
her own portion of inheritance was inferior to that of
Tiberius. Ritter however points out that, like his
Hellenistic counterparts, Augustus transmitted his title
without mediation from the Senate, although it was from this
body that he had received it. Given the above, Ritter
suggests that, in creating the Augusta, Augustus adapted
Hellenistic elements and transformed them into something
Roman.*
What did Livia's new title entail? An examination of
the nature of Augustus' prestige vis-a-vis that of Livia is
necessary. Augustus' prestige was based on three apparent
factors: a) his virtues, recognized by the community by the
158
bestowal of the clipeus in 27 B.C.; b) the attainment of the
supreme religious authority in the state (the Pontificate);
c) the crowning title of Pater Patriae.
Augustus' much advertised personal virtues, engraved in
the gold clipeusr were: virtusr dementia, iustitia and
pietas, which engendered pax, concordia and salus. Briefly
stated, while virtus and pietas were old republican virtues,
dementia was the quality of a ruler, who bestowed it on his
adversaries from a position of superior power. Augustus was
proud of having been granted the civic crown ob cives
servatos on account of the mercy demonstrated at the end of
the civil war. The idea of the princeps as merciful savior
became one of the cardinal points of Augustan ideology.7
Pietas was also much on display, both with regard to
Augustus' actions toward Caesar, the adoptive father, and
with regard to the ancient cults and religious rites rees-
tablished. In Cicero's opinion pietas was the foundation of
all virtues, since it involved loyalty to one's country,
gods and family.' Finally, virtus was what made a man
manly, an umbrella-category which subsumed physical prowess,
self-restraint, gravitas and dignity.
With the exception of iustitia. recognized in a cult
developed late in Augustus' reign (A.D. 13), the virtues
mentioned above paralleled those most advertised in Livia:
mercy, chastity, piety. Livia's dementia was well-known
both in the political and private arena: not only Cinna and
159
other senators appreciated it, but also a group of anonymous
drunks, who were running about naked. They crossed paths
with Livia's entourage, and would have been put to death for
presenting such an offensive sight, had she not interceded
on their behalf, saying that to chaste women they were no
different from statues. Her pietas was also widely
recognized, both toward the gods, in imitation of her
husband, and toward her relatives: she lived in harmony with
Antonia and helped her raise her and Drusus' children,
protected Agrippina and her children against Sejanus, and
supported the exiled Julia. Both aspects of pietas were
summed up in Livia's exercise of her religious duties to the
memory of her deified husband, which combined the dutiful
respect of a daughter/wife toward the parent/husband/god.'
Finally, what virtus was to a man, pudicitia was to a
woman, since both were qualities necessary to the survival
of the state. Also in this respect Livia was exemplary. As
for iustitia. Livia's association with it has been recently
discounted, although it had been previously accepted on the
basis of numismatic evidence.10
Augustus' (and Livia's) virtues engendered many bless-
ings for the community: the two most commonly attributed to
Livia's influence were concordia and salus. Concordia.
although not exclusively Augustan, was associated with Livia
in a number of ways: she had been personally involved in the
ceremony for the formal constitution of the restored temple
160
of Concordia in the forum (Jan. 7 B.C.), later dedicated by
Tiberius in A.D. 10. In addition to that, she privately
financed the construction of the horaonymous shrine in her
own portico. Concordia was the ideal condition which the
Roman family and the state strove to attain, and with which
the ruling families, from Augustus on, tried particularly
hard to identify, even in the face of adverse reality.
To create the proper conditions for concordia and to main-
tain it was also, for the most part, one of the wife's
tasks; in this respect Livia had done more than her required
share to preserve the family's reputation, despite blatant
internal disagreements (Tiberius' departure for Rhodes, for
instance). As for salus, coinages of the Tiberian years
represent this blessing with Livia's idealized, but recog-
nizable, features. Pax, another much-publicized Augustan
blessing, was associated with Livia indirectly, but no less
symbolically, since the Ara Pacis had been inaugurated on
Livia's birthday. The symmetrical qualities displayed by
Livia and Augustus, whether they were the fruit of similar
personalities or artfully cultivated, suggest that the
prestige enjoyed by Livia was based on the display of vir-
tues recognized as typical of a wise princeps, in her case a
princeps femina.lx
The second essential element of Augustus' auctoritas
was the religious aura that surrounded his title, an aura
which had been reinforced by the conferment of the Pontifi-
161
cate in 12 B.C. The peak of his career was eventually
reached with the grant of Pater Patriae ten years later,
whereby "the August One" became the archetypal social and
religious head of the Roman state. W. K. Lacey remarks that
in Rome the most important institutions, i.e., family,
religion and government, were based on forms of power and
authority developed from the original patria potestas. For
this reason the state was organized in structures that
tended to echo the family's internal hierarchy, dominated by
the figure of the paterfamilias. Thus, for instance, the
social inequality between father and children was replicated
in the relationship between patronus and clientela, as well
as in that of the Pontifex Maximus and the Vestals. As
chief authority figures in their respective areas of
influence, both the paterfamilias and the consul could take
auspicia to interpret the will of the gods. Finally, the
main government body, the Senate, originally convened the
Patres of Rome's most powerful families. The intertwining
of paternal, religious and social authority is also evident
in the development of the cult of Vesta from domestic to
state divinity, in the care of a father figure, the
Pontifex. who presided over the Vestals. As discussed
earlier, the close association of the state with Augustus'
family had begun in triumviral times and continued in a
number of different ways so that, as Lacey observed, the
transition from paterfamilias to pater patriae would be a
162
logical consequence.12
A similar trend is manifested in the creation of
Livia's new official persona. Her auctoritas as well seems
connected to the title and function of parent because, as
soon as she became Augusta, the Senate proposed to grant her
the titles of Hater or Parens Patriae which, despite
Tiberius' veto in Rome, will reappear later in Spanish
coinages and inscriptions amplified in Genetrix Orbis. The
proposed addition of Juliae filius to Tiberius' name may
actually have been meant not to embarass Tiberius, as
Tacitus suggests, but as extrapolation from Mater Patriae
and as a parallel to his other title of divi Auousti filius.
to increase the legitimacy of his position at the head of
the state. Indeed a few inscriptions honor Livia, as well
as her mother Alfidia, as benefactresses of the world,
probably on account of their respective children, while
others unequivocally refer to Livia as mother of the
dynasty.13
A religious aura surrounded the title of Augustus and
had been augmented by the attainment of the Pontificate,
while in Livia's case this added prestige had to be supplied
by the only female priesthood grounded in Roman tradition,
that of the Vestals. The symmetry was not exact, however,
and presented some technical problems: while Augustus was
Pontifex, Livia could not, under a practical point of view,
be a Vestal.14 The proximity between the Augusta and the
163
Vestals was emphasized in a number of ways, physical,
symbolic and legal: like the Vestals, Livia had been
granted, early on, the sacrosanctity and the permission to
administer her own patrimony. During Tiberius' reign, she
was granted the use of the carpentum and could employ one
lictor when on duty as priestess of Augustus. On the other
hand, the Vestals received some of the privileges granted
Livia, such as the ius trium liberorum and the freedom from
the restrictions of the Voconian law,? furthermore, the old
Augusta sat among them at the theatre. All this lent
further weight to the supporting role that Livia was to play
in this sensitive transitional phase.
The title of Augusta was not only honorific and
dynastic, but indicated also Livia's function of priestess
of the deified Augustus. As such Livia pursued vigorously
the creation of the cult of Rome's new protector. With
Tiberius she financed the construction of the temple to the
Divus, and on her own she instituted the Ludi Palatini.
Although this was a private festival honoring Augustus'
memory, members of the upper classes were selectively invit-
ed to the celebration: the last day of the festivities
coincided with Livia's wedding anniversary. Years later she
and Tiberius dedicated a statue of Augustus in the Theatre
of Marcellus; on this occasion Livia had her name inscribed
before that of her son. The fact was unusual enough to
deserve mention and it may have inspired gossip as to the
164
relations between mother and son. It has been argued that
she did so as priestess of the Divus: a likely explanation
for the anomaly, which may reflect her unique position with
respect to other state cults. In fact, it was unprecedented
that a woman should serve a god who technically was her
father: the only recent precedent of a divinized leader's
cult, that of Divus Julius, had no women in priestly
functions, possibly because none of Caesar's lawful wives
had ever undertaken tasks of social representation similar
to Livia's. Her position as priestess of Augustus may seem
redundant, however, since there was also a body of priests
in charge of the cult of the gens Julia, the sodales
Augustales. They were chosen from among the highest
families, under the leadership of males of the imperial
house. The first flamen Augustalis was Germanicus.
Redundance was not Augustus' intention: the correspondence
between male and female religious title in this case is
reminiscent of ancient practices, originally carried out by
the rex and regina sacrorum. or by the flamen and flaminica.
Finally, in order to explain the precedence of the Augusta
over Tiberius in this inscription: in Rome and in the West
Tiberius preferred not to use any of the titles which he had
inherited from his adoptive father, particularly that of
Augustus, which he permitted only in the case of foreign
correspondence. Livia, on the other hand, had shown no
reservations against using in Rome her title of Augusta;
165
therefore it is possible that the prestige of the title
justified the privileged position of her name on this
particular inscription.15
The above discussion is meant to highlight the social
and religious elements inherent in the concept of Augustus f
which may help to clarify the reason of its transmission to
Livia and define the nature of the title and position she
inherited. The Augusta's auctoritas was not based on the
exercise of effective power or political office, but rather
on personal qualities that were symmetrical to those of the
princeps. Much like that of her consort, her authority had
religious and social character, because her title was
combined with others suggesting parenthood and the highest
priesthoods in the state.
2. The Tiberian Years: Mother and Son at the Helm of State
The first part of Tiberius' rule, from A.D. 14 to A.D.
23, the year of Drusus' death, was viewed in generally
positive terms even by those ancient writers who were
critical of the principate in general and of Tiberius in
particular. Thus Tacitus and Dio acknowledge Tiberius'
efforts to ensure a responsible administration of power
while trying to restore decision-making power to the Senate.
The ruler's preoccupation with the welfare of the common
people and of the provincials in the areas of food supply
and fair governing practices is also remembered. Moderation
and justice were the chief virtues with which Tiberius
166
wished to inform his own rule: during these years he seemed,
in fact, to live up to his own aspirations. He did not
covet the wealth of others in order to replenish the
Treasury's coffers (although this was one of his primary
preoccupations), nor did he resort to political trials for
this purpose. His interest in the administration of the law
led Tiberius to attend frequently the criminal courts and
supervise the proceedings personally in order to prevent
blatant abuses. In the vain attempt to restore a certain
independence to the Senate, Tiberius strove to maintain an
air of impartiality and objectivity, separating his own
decisions in matters of policy from those of a more personal
nature (as indicated, for example, by his leniency in the
first maiestas trials and by his behavior in the course of
Cnaeus Piso's trial). Unfortunately, his good intentions
were misunderstood or misrepresented, so that his
characterization by Tacitus and Dio survives as a byword for
deviousness, inscrutability and duplicity.16
The servility and flattery of the Senate, which
refused to share Tiberius' burden of responsibility,
genuinely disgusted him. Tiberius' official discountenance
of the titles of Augustus and Pater Patriae for himself was
not just a consequence of his own moderation and dislike of
pomp and flattery, but also of his desire to establish the
deified Augustus as the legitimate origin of his power. By
placing Augustus in the position of the numen?to whom alone
167
allegiance was due?as sanction for his own rule, Tiberius
aimed at presenting himself as the continuator of his divine
predecessor's policies. The further development of the
concept of maiestas and its employment with reference to
Augustus' new position became a means to establish the
principate on unassailable grounds as well as to control
possible opponents. The emphasis on Augustus was however
also a weapon in Tiberius' struggle against the factions
within his own family and against Livia's demands.
2.1. Tiberius and Livia
The years from A.D. 14 to 29 witness the peak of
Livia's public acclaim and political influence, as well as
the low point in her relationship with her son.
Owing to his reluctance to employ monarchical titles
for himself and to accept extraordinary honors, Tiberius
also felt it necessary to curtail similar honors heaped on
Livia by the Senate, deeming them extravagant and excessive,
particularly for a woman. Once again, an attitude that in
other circumstances would have been praised as one of
respectable restraint in the best republican tradition was
distorted and misrepresented as evidence of Tiberius' hatred
toward his mother and his family at large.17
Indeed the relationship between mother and son was
extremely complex, much more so than the maneuvering
frequently imputed by the main sources, since the personal
and the political were intertwined to an unprecedented
168
degree: Livia was not only Tiberius' mother, nor even just
the Queen Mother, she was also the Augusta. The ambiguities
inherent in her official position spilled over into her
personal dealings with her son.
Tiberius' awareness of his own dependency on her
advice and support, particularly during the very delicate
phase of transition, was deeply troubling to him. On her
part, Livia's attitude, when her will was thwarted, fueled
the unkind gossip that had already circulated widely in Rome
since Tiberius' adoption. Dio states repeatedly that Livia
was, by this time, taking active part in the political
process in a fashion far less discreet than she had done
under Augustus, although still within the limits of accepted
social conventions.18
Personal disagreements were played down in the
official propaganda: archeological evidence of various types
points to the unprecedented official nature of their
partnership, as Livia-Julia Augusta and Tiberius appear?
with or without the Senate?in a number of artifacts,
private and public. Her position of pre-eminence as
priestess of the Divus Augustus is evident in the Grand
Camee de France, a piece modeled on the Gemma Augustea:
although chronologically Claudian, it reflects the dynastic
situation of the early Tiberian principate.1* The seated
arrangement Tiberius-Livia is clearly reminiscent of that of
Augustus-Dea Roma on the Gemma Augustea; Livia appears as
169
priestess, with hair tied with fillets and a laurel crown,
but instead of the expected sacrificial patera, she holds
ears of wheat and poppies in her right hand, according to
her LiviahyphenminusDemeter representation. This iconographical
representation is rather puzzling, since as a mortal
priestess she could not be shown seated. Could this
conflation of different attributes be a rendition of the
Diva Augusta? The Claudian date makes it likely.20 The
disposition of other family members on either side of
Tiberius and Livia must have corresponded to a somewhat
standardized arrangement, since a similar order has been
noted in the disposition of imperial statues in the temple
of Augustus and Roma in Leptis Magna.21 There, the prehyphenminus
eminence of Livia and Tiberius was emphasized by the size of
their respective statues, larger than those of the other
family members.
Livia and Tiberius appear on many specimens of local
coinages in a variety of combinations. The most significant
for our purposes are those in which they are defined as
?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauomicroniotatonos, and those in which Livia appears alone as Julia
Augusta or as a divinity. It is commonly believed that
Livia was united in cult and honors with the Divus Augustus
as the ?epsilon&alphasigmatauomicroniotatonos only after her death. There are, however, a
few provincial coinages that indicate the opposite, i.e.
that the title was also applied to her and Tiberius during
their lifetime. Issues from Pergamon, Aphrodisias, Mastaura
170
and from the tetrarchy of Philip show Tiberius and Livia's
jugate heads on the obverse, with the title ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauomicroniotatonos.
Equally significant are coins representing Livia alone, on
the obverse side, in a number of instances.22 Among the
most noteworthy are the issues of the city of Augusta in
Cilicia, founded in A.D. 20 expressly to honor Livia: only
one issue shows the usual arrangement, i.e., Tiberius on
obverse, Livia on reverse. All the others, down to the time
of Nero, show only Livia.
In A.D. 17 a violent earthquake destroyed a number of
cities in Asia Minor: Sardis and Magnesia by the Sipylus
were the most heavily damaged. Tiberius supplied generous
help and tax relief, and Livia too was probably involved in
providing aid, since coinages of Magnesia represent on the
reverse a bust of the Augusta, on the obverse the Senate (a
young male); a similar type has Livia on the reverse as thetaepsilonalphatonosnu
?epsilon?alphasigmatauetatonosnu, probably as benefactress.23
In A.D. 22 and 23 the provincials of Asia successfully
prosecuted their governor, Gaius Silanus, and Tiberius'
procurator, Lucilius Capito. Both defendants were condemned
to exile, and the provincials celebrated their victory with
the construction of a temple to Tiberius, Livia and the
Senate. Livia's part in the proceedings is not immediately
evident, but we may assume that she must have had her say on
the subject, since issues from Smyrna celebrating the
completion of the temple show draped busts of Livia and of
171
the Senate facing each other on the obverse, with the
caption ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauetatonos ?upsilontonosgammakappalambdaetatauomicronsigma1. On the reverse is the temple in
question.24 The representation of Livia and the Senate on
the same face of a coin is rare, since the only other
related specimen has her on the reverse: perhaps she
influenced members of the Senate in securing Silanus and
Capito's condemnation.
Livia and Tiberius appear jointly as rulers on an
inscription from Macedonia, where the date of the event
celebrated (A.D. 22) is calculated according to the years of
Tiberius and Julia Augusta's rule.25 This is probably the
most unequivocal evidence of the way in which the Augusta
was commonly perceived, despite Tiberius' careful avoidance
of his mother's direct involvement in government. As
priestess of the deified Augustus, Livia's presence next to
Tiberius or the Senate on artifacts, monuments and
inscription signified divine sanction for the continuation
of Augustan policies.
2.2. Julia Augusta and the Senate
The above mentioned numismatic issues of Livia and the
Senate, despite their rarity, are not the only indications
of the harmony between the two.2' In fact, there is
significant evidence that, throughout her long career, she
enjoyed the respect, admiration and?in a few cases?
probably the affection both of individual senators and of
the body as a whole. The outpouring of concern on the
172
occasion of her near fatal illness in A.D. 22 manifested
itself in supplications, votive games sponsored by the major
priesthoods, the vowing of an altar to her recovery, coinage
of Salus, Pietas and Iustitia issues, celebrating the
renewed health of Livia and of the state and Tiberius'
pietas. The recovery brought her also the one numismatic
issue in Rome with her name, a senatorial coinage which
recorded the grant of the use of the carpentum, the vehicle
permitted to the Vestals and to members of some priesthoods.
Both the carpentum and the Salus portraits contributed
significantly to the further development of the imperial
iconography and ceremonial: Salus became the model of
subsequent representations of Julia Augusta, while the
carriage was one of the many privileges transmitted to
Livia's female successors." Her death in A.D. 29 was the
occasion for another series of unprecedented honors, to be
discussed below. Suffice it to say for now that the number
and variety of honors created for her by the Senate in A.D.
14 and in A.D. 22 are evidence not so much of senatorial
adulatiof as of genuine admiration and appreciation of her
character and political significance.
Despite the Senate's overwhelming support for the
deification of Augustus and the establishment of his cult by
Livia, the question of the status of the Divus vis-a-vis the
State and the law needed to be clearly defined.2* The law
of maiestas became a means to this end: according to
173
Tacitus, it was "rediscovered" by Tiberius and abused as an
instrument of tyranny. Modern scholars, however, have been
more generous: Seager and Levick recognized that maiestas
was part and parcel of the institution of the principate and
that the law had already been used under Augustus, though
with less publicity.29 The following discussion will deal
briefly with the particular maiestas trials that are
relevant to the examination of Livia's official position.
2.3. Livia and the trials for Maiestas
The crimen maiestatis had been used since republican
times to punish those misdeeds that tarnished and diminished
the majesty of the Roman people. That general definition,
despite refinements by Sulla and Caesar, allowed use of this
law for the purpose of incriminating political rivals.
Maiestas trials appear in Tacitus' Tiberian narrative
very early, and are reported frequently: between A.D. 15 and
23 at the rate of one a year, with a dramatic increase after
Sejanus' fall.30 Among the first cases, in A.D. 15, was
that of Falanius. An obscure knight, he had been accused
anonymously of having tolerated a notorious male prostitute
and mime, Cassius, among his home's collegium of worshippers
of Augustus, and of having sold a statue of the same along
with the gardens in which it stood. Tiberius' response was
rational and lenient: Livia herself had employed Cassius in
the ludi Palatini in honor of her dead husband; as for the
sale of the statue, it was no more abhorrent than that of
174
the statues of other gods in private houses.
The anonymity of the accuser suggested to Bauman the
possibility that Livia may have been the instigator of
Falanius' trial, failed because of "an unfortunate
oversight" in choosing Cassius, "a vulnerable example." In
his opinion, Livia had planned the incident to enhance her
own influence as priestess of the new cult. In a similarly
arbitrary fashion, he also associates her with a later case,
that of Clutorius Priscus in A.D. 21. The defendant was
guilty of having read prematurely a poem on the death of
Drusus, meant as a companion piece to another, on the death
of Germanicus, that had actually been praised by Tiberius.
Clutorius was not as lucky as Falanius: in Tiberius'
absence, he was hastily condemned to death by the Senate, in
a rather unusual fashion, under the pressure of D. Haterius
Agrippa. Bauman connects Haterius to Livia through the
former's father, a clumsy senator who had unwittingly
offended Tiberius and was saved by her intercession. Livia
is also deemed to have exerted pressure on the matrons
present at the infamous recitation to force them to testify
against Clutorius.31
These assumptions seem unsupported, as there is
absolutely no trace in the sources of even the smallest
involvement of Livia in the charges brought in both cases.
Had there been the faintest suspicion of her hand in these
trials at any time, Tacitus and other unfavorable sources
175
would certainly have used it to their own advantage.
Instead, Bauman's argument centers on Haterius' family's
debt of gratitude to the Augusta. However, if Haterius'
gratitude is the motivation, then he had a more personal
debt with Drusus (whose relative he also was) who, with
Germanicus, had won him the praetorship. This seems a more
reasonable cause for Haterius' harshness; a more probable
inducement for the trial may be attributed to Drusus' desire
to strike a blow against Sejanus, with whom he was at odds
(Priscus' only defender was a Vitellia, from a family
friendly to Claudius, at this time almost a relative of
Sejanus)."
On the other hand, when we consider the only case
reported in which both Livia and Tiberius were the object of
defamation (a crime specifically included by Augustus in the
law of maiestas), the outcome is different. In A.D. 17
Appuleia Varilla, relative of Augustus, was brought to trial
for insulting remarks on the Divus P the Augusta and
Tiberius, as well as for adultery. Tiberius' reaction,
after consulting with Livia, was magnanimous: only offences
to the name of Augustus should be punished. Appuleia was
found guilty of adultery, not of maiestas. It would have
been not only possible, but legitimate for Livia to demand
the punishment of Appuleia without incurring any censure.
Her own sacrosanctitas made insulting remarks against the
Augusta a crime. The defendant, however, had no real power
176
to effectively harm the regime; therefore, Livia and
Tiberius could afford to be merciful. By comparison, the
trial of the historian Cremutius Cordus, accused of having
praised Brutus and Cassius in his writings, ended with the
death of the scholar. What made this possible, in addition
to Sejanus' pressures, was the fact that Cordus was
perceived as having diminished the importance of Augustus'
achievements. Instructive, for the purposes of the present
discussion, is the opening of Cordus' self-defense: sed
neque haec in principem aut principis parentem. quos lex
maiestatis amplectitur (4.34.2). These words clearly state
that, by A.D. 25, the Augusta was?in the eyes of the law?a
public official and, as such, invested with the majesty of
the Roman state, not just with the sacrosanctity accruing to
religious figures.33
In general, Tiberius' policy with respect to treason
during the first part of his rule consistently advocated
leniency when crimes of a rather frivolous nature were
directed toward himself or members of his family, as long as
these did not question or diminish the accomplishments of
Augustus. Scattered references to Livia suggest that,
within ten years from the creation of her title and func-
tion, she was regarded as the only female public official of
the state who could benefit from the protection afforded by
the law of maiestas. On the basis of the scanty evidence
available, it seems reasonable to say that, even in this
177
position, she continued to exercise her well-known
restraint.
2.4. Divine Personifications and Other Honors
The most noticeable aspect of the semi-divine honors
and divine personifications employed in these years to exalt
Livia is the emphasis on maternal titles and figures, now
more accentuated than in the preceding period. The concept
of Augusta as mother (of Tiberius, of the Domus Augusta, of
the world) is recurrent in a number of artistic mediums.
She also continues to be associated with divine mothers
protecting prosperity (Ceres, Demeter), and with divinities
safeguarding the security and well-being of the state (Ves-
ta, Cybele, Salus Augusta).
The numismatic portrait of Julia Augusta seated and
holding a patera, based on Tiberian coinages of A.D. 15,
became extremely popular on account of its adaptability, and
was reproduced in a number of combinations (veiled, with
patera as sacerdos; with long sceptre and patera as Juno;
with sceptre, ears of corn and poppies as Ceres-Demeter) in
widely different areas of the Empire. While the combination
of varying attributes may sometimes confuse modern scholars
trying to decipher the message, it was indicative of
Tiberius' own uncertainty as to which divine honors would be
appropriate for his mother to accept, as is evident in his
answer to the Gytheates' requests for permission to pay her
semi-divine honors. Yet the ambiguity, fostered by the
178
absence of explicative captions on some coinages, did not
work to Livia's disadvantage: the ambiguity of the message
left room for subjective interpretations, which in turn
fostered a culthyphenminuslike reception.34
The most outspoken tributes to Livia's motherhood come
from the Western provinces, particularly from the veterans'
colonies of Spain. Romula's coinages portray Divus Augustus
on the obverse and the rare and unusual caption Iulia
Augusta Genetrix Orbis on the reverse, which shows Livia's
head on a globe with a crescent. Tarraco, on the other
hand, chose to emphasize Livia's descendants. The reverse
of a piece bearing a laureate Tiberius on the obverse has
Livia and her grandson Drusus. The concepts advertised in
these two coinages reappear, combined, in an inscription
from Anticaria in Baetica, honoring Iulia Augusta, mother of
Tiberius and Germanicus and genetrix orbis.3S
In Africa, pieces from Leptis Magna also present a
laureate Tiberius and a seated, veiled Livia holding a
patera and sceptre, with the caption Augusta Mater Patriae.
A Greek inscription from Tlos conveniently sums up and
expands this theme, celebrating Livia as the creator of a
race of immortal thetaepsilonomicroniotatonos epsilontonos7tauiotaphialphanu?iotadieresistonossigma1. The glorification of impehyphenminus
rial motherhood and ancestry also functioned retroactively
as Livia's parents were remembered with statues as well.36
The concept of a Domus Augusta immortal, incorruptible
and eternal expressed on the Tlos inscription, links Livia
179
with providentia. a virtue advertised by Tiberius in union
with aeternitas. As defined by Charlesworth, providentia is
the foresight, manifested by the gods or by their human
intermediaries, which helps to secure the continued and
peaceful existence of the state, and protects it from
internal and external dangers. In more tangible terms this
translates into "paternal" (or maternal, as the case may be)
"and loving forethought for the people . . . , a continual
steady drive of goodwill." In spite of Tiberius' lack of
public relations skills, his demonstrable concern for a
healthy state treasury, judicial justice, respect for the
governing magistrates and discriminating support of the
truly needy, are all expressions of such "steady drive of
goodwill." As for that of Livia, it was well-known and
appreciated by Senate and people alike, as indicated above.
Guaranteeing able successors was also one aspect of
providentiaf which secured the aeternitas of the Roman
state. Livia had done her part in this respect, giving
origin to Tiberius and Drusus and, consequently, to their
descendants and successors. Although no trace exists on
monuments in Rome of a clear identification of Livia with
providentia. she was so honored in Athens.17
On the ideological and propagandistic level, the asso-
ciation of Livia and Tiberius with Rome's symbol for eterni-
ty, the cult of Vesta, was put forward in a number of ways.
Tiberius was the Pontifex Maximus, Livia an honorary Vestal:
180
she enjoyed sacrosanctity, the use of one lictor and of the
carpentum and sat among the Vestals at the theatre. After
her divinization, the Vestals were in charge of her cult.
Nevertheless, the relationship between Livia and Vesta was
not as widely appealing as that between Livia and Ceres-
Demeter and seems to have remained circumscribed to Rome and
Greece. Only two inscriptions from Greece attest to it.
One of these, however, from Lampsacus, mentions a cult
statue of Iulia Augusta-Hestia and new Demeter, a unique
combination.3e
When motherhood was not clearly spelled out, it was
suggested and implied by the association of Livia with or
her impersonation of deities protecting it, Juno-Hera and
Ceres-Demeter. A number of inscriptions refer to Iulia
Augusta as the new Hera. A statue of Livia stood in the
temple of Hera in Samos, along with those of her parents.
In Larissa she had a priestess as Iulia Augusta-Hera, while
coinage specimens from Thapsus bear the caption Iun. Aug.
and one from Oea a bust of Livia and a peacock. Issues from
Utica also seem to show a local variation of the theme,
Livia-Juno-Astarte.39
The last association of Livia with a divine mother
figure is that with Cybele. Judging from the extant evi-
dence, this link would not seem quantitatively very impor-
tant, since it was not as widely advertised as that with
Ceres-Demeter. Yet the Great Mother was essential to the
181
regime and connecting her with Livia is most indicative of
the Augusta's ideological function.
The only remaining artifacts available in this respect
are a Vienna sardonyx, a sitting statue at the J. P. Getty
museum and a coin of uncertain origin. For present
purposes, the Vienna sardonyx will suffice. This jewel
belongs to the Tiberian years and represents Livia as
priestess of Augustus, since she holds a small bust of the
Divus with her right hand, her head partially veiled. She
also wears a diadem and, on top of that, Cybele's mural
crown. Her left forearm rests on a tympanon on which a lion
has been carved, while the left hand holds a bunch of corn
ears and poppies, symbols of Ceres. Although the general
interpretation overwhelmingly favors Livia as Cybele, the
presence of Ceres' attributes should not be forgotten.40
Livia had special ties with the Great Mother. The
first oriental divinity imported to Rome during the
Hannibalic wars, her fate had been very different from that
of other oriental and Egyptian cults. Her bloody native
rituals fascinated and repelled the Romans: Roman citizens
were excluded from the priesthood, and the magistrates
limited and curtailed any political involvement on the part
of the Great Mother's priests.
The goddess, guarantor of victory against enemies,
underwent a complete Romanization and became especially
connected with the aristocracy. The Claudians, in particu-
182
lar, claimed a vital part in the introduction of her cult,
since it was thanks to their kinswoman Claudia Quinta that
the Great Mother was able to reach Rome. The story of
Claudia was acted out annually in the ludi scaenici, which
were part of the Megalensia, festivities in honor of the
goddess organized by representatives of Rome's bluest blood.
To preserve the aristocratic flavor of the celebration,
foreigners and slaves were not admitted. As a Claudian by
birth, Livia probably felt under special protection of this
divinity: signs and omens vouched for that. The statue of
Claudia Quinta, in the temple on the Palatine, survived two
fires unscathed; palms grew by the goddess' temple and in
the Forum before Livia's wedding to Octavian. Livia herself
vied in chastity with her ancestress. After Augustus'
extensive restoration and reconstruction of the buildings on
the Palatine, the temple of Cybele stood close by the houses
of Augustus and Livia; in fact, it appeared almost like an
extension of the palace. Although the Julii had not
particularly distinguished themselves in the past as
devotees of the goddess (their representatives were in
charge of the Megalensia only four times), and although the
only reference to Octavian as devotee was rather
unflattering, it was the marriage to Livia that once again
(as in the case of Bona Dea) brought an aristocratic
divinity into the sphere of Augustus.41
Livia's identification with the Great Mother was
183
believed to betray her intention to offset the cult of the
Julian Venus Genetrix: an interesting interpretation and not
improbable, in view of the simmering rivalry and resentment
on the part of some Julians. Cybele and Venus had been at
odds in the past, in fact the former had triumphed over the
latter. After the victory of Pharsalus over Pompey
(protected by Venus Victrix), Antony rode in a chariot drawn
by lions. On the other hand, the two goddesses also collabhyphenminus
orated to bring victory to the Roman people. Republican
coins show Cybele on her chariot on the reverse, Venus
Genetrix on the obverse. Lucretius, moreover, had somehow
blurred the boundaries between them, employing imagery
related to the Great Mother in his initial description of
Venus, the reverse to introduce the Great Mother in book 2.
Yet, in the national epic of Virgil, it was Cybele who had
been exalted as savior and protector of the Trojans,
qenetrix of the Roman and Augustan order, despite the varihyphenminus
ous interventions of Venus in favor of Aeneas.42
Livia, acknowledged mother of the dynasty, could
certainly be expected to impersonate Venus Genetrix. Inhyphenminus
stead, rather peculiarly, the artistic representations of
Livia as Venus are the most controversial and least
reliable. Gross for one dismisses as such one of the pieces
that would seem to confirm the LiviahyphenminusVenus association,
i.e., the Altar of Ravenna. While a few Greek inscriptions
from Asia Minor indeed refer to Livia as ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauetatonos thetaepsilonalphatonos
184
Alphatonosphirhoomicroniotatonosiotatonostaueta ?iotatonosbetaiotaalpha, numismatic issues from the Asiatic
Bosphorus make the identification doubtful. The one
possible link to Venus Victrix (identified by some as one
and the same with the Genetrix) may be seen in Augustan
issues from Smyrna which establish a relation between Livia
and Alphatonos0rhoomicron6iotatonostaueta ?taurhoalphatauomicronnuiotakappaiotatonossigma1, the local patron. However, the
image of the goddess may simply refer to the local cult.43
The great maternal divinities with whom Livia was linked
in these years shared certain characteristics: for a long
time Cybele, Demeter and Hera had been linked together by
the Greeks as the Great Mother, Ceres, Ops, Vesta and Tellus
had been by the Romans. The goddesses corresponded to
different aspects of the female principle: the generative
power, source of life in nature, protecting bountiful crops,
assisting in the preservation of family and property and
ultimately ensuring the successful and eternal survival of
the state and of its hierarchical order. This may explain
why LiviahyphenminusCybele is portrayed holding corn and poppies, with
diadem and veil like Hera. By way of contrast, it is
interesting to notice that links between Cybele and Isis,
another very popular motherly divinity, although evident,
were not emphasized by state cult, despite the fact that
Livia was identified with the new Isis in Egypt. The reason
for this is probably to be found in the more inclusive
character of the Isiac religion, regarded as dangerously
subversive by Augustus and his successors." Representing
185
Livia with the attributes of the divinities mentioned above
contributed to create the symbolic image of Julia Augusta,
Mother of the Empire.
In addition to identifying with motherly divinities
protecting family and state, Livia was also honored in
association with the cult of the "blessings and virtues" of
the regime. This cult centered on deified qualities and
benefits brought by the ruler, which were ideologically
vital to his/her rule. Though Hellenistic in origin, it had
enjoyed a certain popularity in Rome since Republican times
and culminated in the establishment of Concordia as state
divinity. This system was especially appropriate to the
construction and dissemination of the image of female
members of the dynasty, because it was discreet and
ambiguous. Although the form of the adjective Augusta
defining Salus and Pietas did not refer expressly to Livia,
but to the deified concept in question, it was nevertheless
highly polyvalent (unlike the masculine genitive Augusti)
and allowed a number of different interpretations. It may
suggest that a particular virtue or blessing originated from
the ruler, or that they had been appropriated for the advan-
tage of the ruler and of his family. For the female members
of the dynasty, this polyvalence was not a disadvantage:
Salus Augusta may even imply that the well-being of the
state depended on Livia, and that it was thus necessary to
seek the assistance of Salus for her recovery. The
186
identification of Livia with Salusr Pietas and Iustitia is
controversial. Experts disagree as to which of the three is
the most reliable or the least unreliable. However, the
fact that Salus coinages became the model for subsequent
official portraits of the old Augusta is indicative.45
2.5. Cult
Manifestations of the cult of Julia Augusta were
frequent and varied in these years: her image was paraded
around in civic festivals, her birthday became an official
festivity, vota were made for her health, and her statues
were placed in temples and other public structures. This
section will examine the development of her cult during
Tiberius' reign, trying to show the correspondences, as well
as the differences, between Hellenized and non-Hellenized
areas of the empire. The following discussion will also
address the question as to whether the cult of Julia Augusta
implied divinity, or just super-human status?
Beginning with the Hellenized areas of Asia Minor, one
is faced with the conventional wisdom of numerous historical
and scholarly accounts, according to which the emperor was
seen as an unquestioned divinity in the East. Tacitus and
many Roman writers dismiss the imperial cult as Graeca
adulatio, evidence of unmanly character. Some modern schol-
ars in turn have represented it as a "loyalty game" played
by essentially sceptical upper classes, with little or no
appeal to the lower social groups. A discriminating reader
187
cannot help being perplexed at the incongruence of Greek
intellectual and cultural achievements vishyphenminusahyphenminusvis abject
sycophancy and naivete, thereby siding with Nock, according
to whom GraecohyphenminusRoraans fully understood the difference
between kings and gods. S. R. F. Price has recently
debunked the myth of Graeca adulatio, demonstrating the
complex nuances of the imperial cult in Asia Minor.
Particularly useful in this respect is his discussion of the
architecture of sanctuaries, and of the impact of the cult
in the transformation of civic space.46
Imperial statues were placed in many different parts of
a city: porticos, gymnasia, squares, as well as in the
imperial temples (Sebasteia). A Sebasteion might consist of
sanctuary plus an altar, surrounded by a number of statues
of the imperial family or, in some cases, they may host a
special shrine for the imperial images. The latter was not
a fullhyphenminusblown temple, only a "sacred shelter" for the
statues. Such seems to have been the sanctuary of Livia at
Eresus in Lesbos, where she had her own sacred precinct
separate from the sanctuary of Augustus. The statues in
question, alphagammaalphatonoslambda?alphataualpha, were cult images inasmuch as they
occupied a sacred place. However, devotion could also be
paid to epsiloniotakappaomicrontonosnuepsilonsigma1 in public places. The honors attributed to
the painted likenesses of Augustus, Livia and Tiberius
during the festival at Gytheum (discussed below) support
this point. The images venerated corresponded to models
188
chosen in Rome and reproduced on coinages. Generally
sacrifices were made not to the emperor and his family, but
on his behalf, and these consisted of libations, the
offering of ritual cakes, and the burning of incense. The
slaughter of animals, bulls or cows, seems to have taken
place at civic festivals.47
The Sebasteia were not the only sacred precincts where
imperial images could be honored. In many cases, the
imperial family shared quarters with local divinities: not
in the same temple, but in a different building within the
temple precinct, which did not rival in magnitude the shrine
of the divinity. This seems to indicate that the
provincials consciously avoided putting the emperor and his
family, however great and benevolent, on the same level as
the deity. Thus, for instance, the statues of Livia and her
parents in the sanctuary of Hera in Saraos were in a
different building from that of the goddess. Sometimes the
statues of the imperial family were placed around the statue
of the deity to whom the temple belonged, but the
arrangement left no doubts as to whose was paramount.
Sharing temple space did not necessarily mean that the
imperial family received cult honors. The presence of
imperial priests may help to determine whether or not the
emperor and his relatives enjoyed cult status. This seems
to be the case in Samos, where Livia shared a priestess with
Hera; the same may apply to Larissa, where, however, it is
189
not clear whether Livia was honored along with Hera, or
whether the Juno of Livia was honored. In Attalia Livia and
other members of the family were honored along with dea
Roma, with whom Livia also shared a priestess, and in
Cyzicus the queen Antonia Tryphaena received the priesthood
of Augusta Nikephoron from the city.48
The recognition that the emperor and his family,
although somehow more than ordinary mortals, were not equal
to divinity is evident in the inscriptions adorning these
temples. On some the honorands are referred to as the "new"
divinity, or the name of the honorand is linked to that of
the god(dess) in question. This does not imply however that
the god has been reincarnated in the ruler, but only that
the ruler approximates the deity's qualities and reproduces
some of his/her achievements by analogy.**
In the case of Julia Augusta, a number of inscriptions
bear this out. In Assos, she was the goddess Livia Augusta
(odd combination), new Hera. In Lampsacos, she was Julia
AugustahyphenminusHestia, new Demeter, and she had an alphatonosgammaalphalambda?alpha, although
it is not clear in whose temple. In Pergamon she was again
the new Hera, while in Cyzicus she was venerated as Demeter,
in addition to having a cult statue in the temple of Athena
Polias as Augusta Nikephoron (from the name of the temple).
The latter had been dedicated by Antonia Tryphaena,
descendant of Antony and widow of Cotys of Thrace, who was
also priestess of Julia Augusta. Although the occasion is
190
not mentioned in the fragment, we may assume that it may
have been an offering of thanks after the adjudication of
the throne to Antonia's children, sometime in A.D. 18. An
inscription from Larissa records a priestess of 'Iomicronupsilonlambdaiotatonosalpha "Hrhoalpha
Z?&aar-f\, an unusual title that some scholars believe to be a
translation of the Juno of the Augusta. In Thespiae she was
associated with Mnemosyne on occasion of thymelic games,
while in Attalia (Pamphylia) the inscription records a
priestess of Julia Augusta and of the goddess Roma. The
specific date is missing, and one can only conjecture that
this cult belongs to the Tiberian years, based on the
mention of the name of the priestess' son, who became
governor under Claudius.50
Other places in which statues or images of the emperor
and his family could be honored and receive cult were
porticos and gymnasia. In some instances both structures
contained shrines or chapels for this purpose. This type of
architecture was common along the Mediterranean; in Rome,
for instance, the Porticus Liviae housed a shrine to
Concordia, while in Ephesos and Aphrodisias statues of
Augustus and Livia stood in porticos. The same situation
could be expected in the Western areas, with some local
variations. In Rome, for example, cult honors could be paid
to the emperor and to Livia at the various altars set up in
the vici. At Leptis Magna, in addition to the imperial
temple, which housed gigantic statues of the imperial
191
family, statues of Livia, Augustus and other Julio-Claudians
stood in the Forum, in front of the Temple of Roma and
Augustus, and probably also in the theatre. The dynasty's
presence was visible all over the provincial cities, in
places that were the destination of processions and parades
during the celebrations of imperial festivals.51
The organization and celebration of festivals and
games in honor of the ruling house involved almost every
social class. The regularity with which these events were
held reflected, in Price's opinion, the provincials'
perception of the stability of the empire. The official
correspondence between Tiberius and the leaders of the town
of Gytheum in Peloponnese, on the subject of a festival in
honor of the deified Augustus, Livia and Tiberius supplies
general indications in this respect. Divine honors and a
festival for the Divus Augustus, Julia Augusta and Tiberius
were decreed by a sacred law in A.D. 15. The festival was
to last six days, with daily processions of painted images
of Augustus and Livia side-by-side, followed by Tiberius,
from the temple of Asclepius and Hygieia to the theater
where thymelic competitions and ludi scaenici would take
place. En route the procession would stop at the shrine of
Augustus, where a bull was to be sacrificed by the imperial
priests on behalf of the emperor, and then continue to the
agora. Once in the theater, the images received a sacrifice
of incense burned on special burners. Fishwick assumes the
192
celebration to be a lectisternium meant to ensure the
preservation and continuation of the ruling house. Julia
Augusta was to be honored as Tyche of the city and of the
confederation to which Gytheum belonged. Despite Tiberius'
own reluctance to accept superhyphenminushuman honors, Livia was free
to decide for herself on the subject, and it seems that she
accepted the honors. The base of a votive statue bears a
dedication to the Tyche of the city, which Kornemann
identifies with Livia."
Julia Augusta may also have been included in the honors
paid by some communities to the ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauomicroniotatonos, or thetaepsilonomicroniotatonos ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauomicroniotatonos,
already at this stage, contrary to the commonly held view
that she joined them only after her consecration. A good
number of Eastern coinages and inscriptions indicate that
she and Tiberius were referred to as ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauomicroniotatonos during her
lifetime, while others referred to her as thetaepsilonalphatonos ?epsilonbetaalphasigmatauetatonos well
before her death. This makes the assessment of her cult
problematic, since inscriptions on monuments do not allow us
to determine exactly when the living ruler(s) were included
in the cult of the divi. As a rule of thumb, according to
Fishwick, the presence of the dea Roma along with the name
of a ruler indicates that the cult in question focuses on
the living person.53
Other types of honors in which Julia Augusta was
included were celebrations of anniversaries, special events
of the imperial family, and imperial birthdays. Local
193
calendars were supplemented by calendars from Rome, so that
a certain uniformity was ensured throughout the empire. It
is not known when Livia's birthday began to be officially
celebrated, but the earliest evidence is dated A.D. 18. In
Forum Clodii wine and sweets were distributed to the city
officials and to the women of the vicus ad Bonam Deam.
There is no precise information about the nature of the
rites, but it is assumed that they were similar to the
supplicatio on the occasion of Augustus' birthday. Livia's
birthday continued to be celebrated at least until A.D. 108,
long after the natales of more recent emperors had become
obsolete. It is unclear whether in Rome there was an animal
sacrifice on this occasion, as for the Divus Augustus. She
received the sacrifice of a cow on her birthdays after her
own deification, but there is no indication of that during
her lifetime.54
Although the observation of her birthday was officially
sanctioned, the date of the actual celebration in the West
differed from that in the East. In Forum Clodii and in Rome
the celebrations took place on the appointed date; in
Pergamon her own festival was made to coincide with
Augustus' natalis which, after the reform of the Asiatic
calendar by a proconsular governor in 9 B.C., represented
the beginning of the new year. On this occasion, as well as
on other imperial anniversaries, the Pergamene hymnodoi sang
hymns and held private celebrations within their
194
association. Also celebrated in various areas of the
empire were the annual vota pro salute on January 3rd, a
Roman import observed from Pergamon to Narbo. The Acta
Fratrum Arvalium mention Livia, as well as Tiberius, as
recipients.55
In the East the existing established tradition of cult
honors to rulers facilitated the institution of the new
ruler's cult. It has long been assumed that Eastern cult
practices gradually spread westward. The West, however,
lacking a tradition comparable to the Hellenistic, developed
its own forms of devotion. In Baetica, Narbonensis and
Africa Proconsularis the imperial cult relied on local
initiative, whereas in the more recently conquered areas it
was imposed in order to create loyalty to the empire and
accelerate the process of Romanization. This accounts for
the distinction drawn between the functions of the sacerdos
and those of the flamen, which have as Eastern
correspondents the Iepsilonrhoepsilonupsilontonossigma1 and the alpharhochiiotaepsilonrhoepsilontonosalphasigma1hyphenminus Briefly
stated, a sacerdos is the religious official of a foreign
(or also municipal) cult who worships at an ara. while the
flamen (and flaminica^ represent a state cult imposed from
Rome and serve only one divinity in a municipal temple in a
colony. Both priesthoods were usually not permanent,
although a few inscriptions specify that the honorand had
been priest(ess) for life. Although a provincial flamen was
usually in charge of the cult of the divi, i. e. the dead
195
and deified rulers, Julia Augusta had a flamen in Olisipo
and another at Gaulos during her lifetime. Elsewhere she
had a flaminica (Augusta Taurinorura, Vasio Vocontiorum,
Baeterrae in Narbonensis, Corfinium, Emerita): this
uncertainty reflects the necessity for Western cults to
accommodate a living woman as one of its objects.
Sacerdotes of Julia Augusta were recorded at Pompeii, Gaulos
and Corfinium. The latter inscriptions are particularly
puzzling, since they seem to indicate that a sacerdos and a
flamen/flaminica were employed at the same time. Whether
this is due to faulty restoration or it denotes a cultic
innovation, the inscriptions need further study.5*
The cult in the Western provinces, of which the
largest were nominally assigned to the Senate, seems at this
time to be exclusively municipal and, with the exception of
Divus Augustus, aimed at living people. Spain is apparently
the most enthusiastic in honoring the doraus Augusta and
particularly Livia, and Tiberius could not forestall all
those honors, although he did veto the erection of a temple
to himself and his mother. In some places the celebration
of Livia's birthday became such an integral part of the
community's calendar that it continued into the following
century. Despite the absence of a Western tradition of
divine honors to rulers, the honors paid to members of
Augustus' family and to Julia Augusta in particular indicate
a readiness and willingness on the part of the provincials
196
which belie charges of servilism and flattery and contradict
the old-fashioned scholarly opinion of "imports" from the
East. This is evident on the occasion of Livia's near-fatal
illness, which produced a varied series of votive honors for
her recovery, both in Rome and in the provinces. In East
and West alike, the cult of the chief representatives of the
dynasty acted as the unifying element which held together
vastly different areas by means of common ceremonies and
rituals observed with regularity.
3. Last Years
The remainder of this chapter will examine the last ten
years of Livia's life in relation to those events which,
according to Tacitus, constituted a watershed in Tiberius'
rule.
The death of Germanicus in A.D. 19 and that of Drusus
shortly after, in A.D. 22, brought to light as never before
the frailty and inner divisions of the Augustan dynastic
system. Their consequences have been aptly defined by
Levick as the "dynastic catastrophe." It was precipitated,
but not primarily caused, by feminine rivalries spinning out
of control. The cause itself may be attributed to
contrasting views of the principate, the more "republican"
and aristocratic outlook of Tiberius vs. the "monarchic" and
populist tendences of Julia's descendants (discussed below).
A convergent factor was the ambitious natures of Livia,
Agrippina and Livilla, mothers of rulers or of prospective
197
rulers: because of their gender, becoming "Queen Mother" was
the only outlet for their desire to rule. Livia and
Agrippina, in particular, had "friends" who helped to
polarize the atmosphere, so that Tiberius, unable to
tolerate the situation any longer, retired to Capri. Due to
the subterranean tensions created by these ambitious ladies
and their entourages, and exploited by Sejanus for his own
ends?rather than to Livia's growing interference alone, as
some authors state?Tiberius abandoned Rome to his
minister.57
3.1. Agrippina and Germanicus
The marriage of Agrippina, daughter of Julia and
Agrippa, to Germanicus, son of Drusus and Antonia, probably
took place sometime in A.D. 5, shortly after the adoptions
of Tiberius and Agrippa Postumus as Augustus' successors,
and the adoption of Germanicus by Tiberius. The years
between A.D. 5 and 7 were marked by social and political
instability (famine, natural disasters, unrest in the
armies), eventually culminating in the relegation of
Agrippina's siblings, Agrippa Postumus and Julia.
The marriage of Agrippina and Germanicus seemed to
recall the past happiness of that between Antonia and
Drusus: soon Augustus could boast of a bevy of
grandchildren, and the young couple became the most popular
advertisement for Augustus' reformation of family life. At
this time there was no visible disagreement among Agrippina,
198
Tiberius and Livia, whatever Agrippina's feelings about the
fate of her mother and siblings may have been. Perhaps she
may not have felt much affection for them; in the later
years of her life the focus of her emotions and political
efforts seems to have been her dead husband and her own
descent from Augustus, without any mention of the rest of
her family. Probably chaste Agrippina, the pride of Roman
womanhood, did not care to be associated with a mother and a
sister who had been banished for immorality. Of the six
surviving children from her marriage, four were named after
Livia and Tiberius. That alone is no indication of family
harmony; however, Livia took an active interest in their
education and seemed especially fond of one of the children,
who died in infancy and whose statue?in the semblance of a
little Cupid?she placed in the temple of Venus Genetrix.5"
The general consensus is that rifts in the family became
evident on the occasion of Gerraanicus' visit to the East,
although suspicions and misunderstandings were rife already
during his campaign in the North. The contrasts between
Tiberius and Germanicus were represented, at a superficial
level, as envy and resentment of the young prince's popular-
ity; at a deeper level they involved suspicions of Antonian
attitudes and excessive cultivation of the army's
sympathies. Such suspicions were not allayed by Germanicus'
proof of loyalty during the riots in Germany: they were
reinforced by his ostensible desire for glory, which
199
translated into limited successes against the Germans at the
price of heavy losses in human and material resources. This
may not have pleased Tiberius, who preferred diplomacy to
military action whenever possible. Resentment and mistrust
were also fanned by Agrippina's exploits, which gave rise to
her reputation as a leader and supplied ammunition to her
enemy Sejanus.59
Despite her wifely virtues, Agrippina was not a
suitable specimen of Roman womanhood: even her bravery on
the Rhine could become a negative example for other wives?
an encouragement to interfere. In fact, her behavior was
later imitated by Plancina, with deleterious consequences
for the well-organized army life. The speech given by
Caecina Severus in the Senate a few years later, chastising
the meddling of governors' wives in provincial affairs, may
have been aimed at Agrippina as well as at Plancina. Bauman
suggests that Caecina Severus held a personal grudge against
Agrippina. He was a legate in Germany at the time, and the
retreat of his army created the panic that was contained by
Agrippina's intervention. This assumption seems supported
by the fact that, as A. J. Marshall also observed, some time
later a law was passed, which made provincial governors
responsible for their wives' behavior. The law was prompted
by the trial of a friend of Agrippina, Sosia Galla, and of
her husband Gaius Silius, both condemned for corruption and
bribery following the rebellion of Sacrovir in Gaul.60
200
3.2 Aemulationes muliebres
Sosia's fate, although deserved, was then visited upon
many of Agrippina's friends by the machinations of Sejanus,
who aimed to isolate Agrippina and eventually eliminate her
and her sons. Regardless of the alleged charges, the common
denominator of this group of people seems to have been
emphasis on the divinity conferred by descent from Augustus.
Tacitus made Agrippina express this idea in the course of an
angry outburst concerning her friend and cousin Claudia
Pulchra, brought to trial on the charges of immorality,
veneficia and magic, usually brought against women suspected
of political activities. Having burst in on Tiberius while
he was sacrificing to Augustus, Agrippina berated him for
honoring effigies mutae. while persecuting her, Augustus7
vera imago, through her friends. The identification of
herself as repository of Augustus' divinity (divinum
spiritum transfusum^ with the vera imago of divine cult is
strengthened by the allusion to Pulchra and Sosia as wor-
shippers (Agrippinam . . . ad cultum delegerit). The
content of these remarks drew Tiberius out of his usual
inscrutability to the point that he spelled out (in Greek)
the real reasons for Agrippina's scene, i.e., that she felt
personally affronted for not being made queen."1
Such a divinizing, Antonian conception of the
absolute primacy that should automatically accrue to one who
is caelesti sanguine orta clearly demonstrates Agrippina's
201
monarchic tendency, shared by members of her group. One is
also reminded of the words of her mother Julia, reported by
Macrobius, to the effect that she never forgot that she was
Augustus' daughter. Agrippina indeed made sure that her
direct descent from Augustus was never forgotten: she used
it, together with her fecunditas, as a weapon against the
competition, namely the Augusta and Livilla. Aemulatio
muliebriSf simmering under the surface of the Augustan
family, erupted in all its pent-up aggression under
Tiberius, feeding on itself in a vicious circle. Livilla's
eventual success in presenting Tiberius with not one, but
two grandsons, was perceived by Agrippina as a blow to her
own widowhood and as a setback to her own aspirations. So
did the common people of Rome, despite Drusus' devotion to
Germanicus' memory and his support of Germanicus' sons.
Drusus' death precipitated Agrippina's impatience and her
desire to see her sons advanced quickly. This in turn
worried Livilla and pushed her even more into Sejanus'
corner. He capitalized on the atmosphere of distrust and
rivalry, seeking for himself the position of regent: to do
so safely, he first had to get rid of Agrippina and her
sons."
What was Livia's attitude with regard to Agrippina's
claims? Tacitus' depiction of Livia as the criminal mind
behind the scene is unique, in that he takes for granted
what other sources (Suetonius, Dio) report as rumours.
202
Introducing the theme of Livia's hatred for Germanicus and
his family in 1.33, Tacitus refers to novercales offensiones
used by her to spur the already excitable Agrippina (paulo
comraotior. a true understatement). Next, in 2.43, Tacitus
says that Livia certainly (haud dubie) conferred with her
agent Plancina, instructing her to provoke Agrippina
(insectandi). The terms used by Tacitus to define Agrippihyphenminus
na 's supposed persecution on the part of Livia (1.33.3
stimuliSf 2.43.5 insectandiIotadieresis refer figuratively to hostile
pursuit and chase, which suggest the myth of Io, persecuted
and chased over the sea by a gadfly because of Hera's
jealousy. This was, apparently, a favorite theme of the
Augusta, since a painting on this subject graced the walls
of her house on the Palatine.
On the other hand, Agrippina hardly fits into the mold
of the suffering heroine. Even Tacitus could not help
betraying his own ambivalence toward her, as he uses very
similar expressions to describe her personality and that of
Drusus, for whom he never shows any great sympathy (he is
impatiens aemuli et animo commotior. 4.3.2; she is aequi
impatiens at 6.25.3, paulo commotior at 1.33.5). However,
the Augusta's exertion in favor of Plancina seemed to
confirm in the eyes of the people the reality of a plot
against Germanicus' family.*3
In reality, despite obvious illhyphenminusfeeling between the
Augusta and Agrippina, Livia was discharging her obligation
203
as patrona of Plancina (discussed below). Against Tacitus'
innuendos on Livia and Tiberius' responsibility for
Germanicus' death, it should be remembered that Antonia,
mother of Germanicus, lived in Livia's house most of her
life and never demonstrated any animosity toward her or
Tiberius. On the contrary, her loyalty to Tiberius was
unquestionable and appreciated. On the other hand,
Agrippina's greed to rule was undisguised: Tacitus uses the
verb inhiaref graphic and unflattering, suggesting (among
other things) the image of a dog avidly awaiting a bone.
The work of Sejanus' agents to sour thoroughly the relations
between Agrippina and the Augusta may have been
superfluous.'4
In view of the above, Tacitus' statement at 5.3.1, that
Livia had protected Agrippina against Sejanus, comes as a
surprise. Seager rejects it, as the last person whom Livia
exerted herself to save had been Plancina. This would turn
the story of Sejanus' letter, intercepted by Livia, into a
legend. Seager's statement receives further support from
Suetonius and Velleius, who prove Tacitus' chronology wrong;
Agrippina's relegation anteceded Livia's death, and took
place probably in A.D. 27. Bauman's solution to the
discrepancy seeks to accommodate the new chronology and
Tacitus' claims. Livia may indeed have saved Agrippina from
capital punishment, while not objecting at all to her
relegation. This seems a sensible solution, especially
204
since we do not know Livia's attitude toward Sejanus.
Perhaps the proud old Claudian resented the interference of
the "municipal upstart" as much as Agrippina did. Her
silence on the occasion of Sejanus' request of Livilla's
hand is instructive, since dynastic marriages and family
matters were her acknowledged sphere of action.'5 She and
Antonia counselled Livilla, and probably Tiberius too, on
the advisability of forestalling any remarriages of the two
younger widows, given the renewed wave of rivalry between
Agrippina and Livilla as mothers of prospective successors.
Scholars now agree that the pressures put upon Tiberius
by three of the four widows by whom he was surrounded
(Livia, Agrippina and Livilla) were the chief reason for his
self-imposed exile on Capri. His departure certainly saved
him from giving a final answer to Agrippina and Livilla on
the subject of remarriage, leaving that field to Livia and
Antonia. Agrippina's relegation shortly after made it a
moot point.**
The play given by Tacitus, more so than by Suetonius
or Dio, to aemulatio feminarum has the function of emphasiz-
ing the decadence from old (and largely imaginary) standards
of virtue. It also highlights, as L. Rutland has pointed
out, the arbitrariness and irrationality governing the
struggle for power, which becomes the playground of
malicious Fortuna, embodied by the overtly ambitious,
ruthless and formidable Julio-Claudian women.67
205
3.3 Livia's women-friends; amicae or clientes?
Livia's defense?through the recalcitrant Tiberius?
of Munatia Plancina, accused of having caused Germanicus'
death by poison and black magic, was the determining factor
in establishing her notorious reputation as noverca of the
house of the Caesars. While Piso was condemned on well-
substantiated charges of treason and sedition, Plancina was
acquitted from the charge of poisoning, despite the circum-
stantial evidence that linked her to a notorious poisoner,
Martina, dead under mysterious circumstances. Public
opinion, based on Agrippina's popularity and on Plancina's
arrogance, had already condemned her. In supporting
Plancina, the old Augusta lost irretrievably whatever
popularity she had among the common people."
Prevailing upon Tiberius to defend Plancina, Livia
also gave the impression that to be her friend meant to be
above the law. Tacitus clearly points this out with respect
to the outrageous behavior of another friend of the Augusta,
the formidable Urgulania. In both cases Tiberius
reluctantly agreed to publicly defend two extremely
unpopular women, making it clear that he did so out of
filial duty. In reality, Livia probably had no choice but
to take these very unpopular steps, lest her own dignitas be
sullied.
Plancina is commonly referred to as "friend" of Livia,
yet nowhere in the Annales does Tacitus employ the word
206
arnica Augustae or other expressions that may suggest
intimacy. At 2.43.5, for instance, Tacitus declares:
Plancinam haud dubie Augusta monuit aemulatione muliebri
Agrippinam insectandi. The word monere could be used in the
context of amicitia. but in this case it seems to denote
more a situation in which instructions are given.
Elsewhere, at 3.15, Tacitus states: Eadem Plancinae invidia.
maior gratia. Gratia had a double meaning, signifying both
the support and favor shown by a patron/friend to the client
after the performance of an officiumf and the position of
the recipient of the favor. As a conseguence, the relation-
ship between the Augusta and Plancina?despite the latter
and Piso's high self-esteem?was not one of eguality, in
view of Livia's position as Augusta. Amicitia usually
obtains among eguals, otherwise it is patronage under dis-
guise. Based on fides, it entails obligations for the
patron, including the defense of the client in court.
Tiberius and Germanicus pleaded cases on behalf of depen-
dents; Livia, as a woman, would have incurred censure if she
had showed up in court. Tiberius had to do it, as
representative of his mother.6*
The case of Urgulania presents further interesting
details concerning Livia's patronage. When brought to court
by Lucius Piso, Urgulania refused to show up, taking refuge
instead at the house of the Augusta. Unimpressed, Piso
dragged her from there, unmoved by Livia's protests that her
207
authority had been violated and demeaned. Bauman takes
Livia's language as an allusion to imperial maiestas, and
interprets it as a challenge to Tiberius to give her
constitutional recognition. What exactly Bauman means by
"constitutional recognition" is unclear: however, as a
person invested with sacrosanctitas, Livia may have been
able to extend protection to those in her vicinity, in a
fashion analogous to that of her Vestal ancestress who, by
riding in her father's chariot, was able to secure his
illegal triumph.70 Urgulania's subsequent outrageous
behavior (when she failed to show up to give her deposition
in a case, a praetor had to take it at her house) caused
Kornemann to attribute monarchic tendencies to the Augusta.
It is possible to give such an interpretation to Livia's
behavior in these two cases, and the word potentia. with a
negative connotation, was often used in such a context. On
the other hand, De St. Croix points out that in the courts,
the practice of granting special favors to clients of
powerful patrons was well established. In this respect, it
is difficult to institute a net demarcation between
monarchical practices and accepted forms of patronage. L.
Piso seemed to take advantage of the ambiguity: his
challenge to Urgulania and to the Augusta is narrated in
2.34, as a follow-up to his avowed intention to retire to
the country, disgusted by the corruption and venality of the
courts.71
208
Tiberius, as we have seen (3.2), took personal interest
in supervising the administration of justice. By dragging
the powerful friend of the Augusta to court, Piso forced
Tiberius to behave in accordance with those republican
principles which he professed to follow. The final result,
Tacitus says, was an enhancement of the reputation of both
men. On the other hand, Livia, as a religious official, had
certain prerogatives and privileges which entitled her to
extend special protection to her clients.
3.4. Partes Agrippinae
Referring to the atmosphere of the palace, at 2.43.5
Tacitus states: Divisa namque et discors aula erat tacitis
in Drusum aut Germanicum studiis. This is the milieu in
which feminine rivalries develop and fester, spreading from
individuals to entourages and giving origin to a party?the
party of Agrippina.
In the course of Germanicus' fatal assignment in the
East, the contrasts already existing between Piso and
himself were exacerbated by the activities of the prince's
amici, who, Tacitus said, purposedly twisted the meaning of
words and deeds on the part of Piso and of his family. Yet,
despite the obvious animosity implied, as Bauman observed,
these maneuvers still fell under the rubric tacita studia.
since there is no mention of a party of Germanicus. His
sympathizers seem to have numbered a few members of the old
209
aristocracy, connected to the circles of Julia Maior and
Minor, literati (Ovid, Clutorius Priscus), and knights
(Titius Sabinus). Above all, his support was large among
the urban crowds and in the army.
After his death, some of Germanicus' supporters
apparently passed into the clientela of Sejanus, while
others, instead of openly opposing the regime, functioned as
pressure groups within the court environment. The party of
Agrippina comes to the fore in A.D. 24, on the occasion of
the induction of Drusus and Nero in the annual vota for
Tiberius. Significantly, it comes to life in the words of
Sejanus, who represents to Tiberius the unsolicited
inclusion of the two princes as an attempt at destabilizat-
ion engineered by Agrippina's party.72
By comparing the occurrence of the word partes in
Tacitus' works, Bauman concluded the existence of a real
political party headed by the widow of Germanicus.
According to Hellegouarc'h, the word has, in this case, the
negative connotation of factio. Pani states that
Agrippina's supporters had little in common with Germanicus'
old group, but rather that she joined forces with senatorial
opponents like Asinius Gallus and Lucius Arruntius and
members of the nobility who had been left out by Sejanus.
There seems to be an agreement on the fact that Sejanus,
not Tiberius, was the target of this party's activities,
since the death of Drusus had deprived Agrippina's sons of a
210
protector. On the other hand, the fact that it is Sejanus
who names this supposed "party" makes its whole existence as
suspicious, a deliberate effort to exaggerate the sphere of
influence of Agrippina's sympathizers in order to justify
their removal.73
Although Livia and Agrippina passed into history as
rivals, they had more in common than has been acknowledged;
both were extremely ambitious and both were, to a great
extent, models of those ancient feminine virtues by means of
which the Augustan moral reform tried to rejuvenate the
declining upper classes. Both women were essentially tragic
characters, in that both tried to satisfy their own desire
for power within the limits which society imposed on them.
Where Livia seems to have achieved partial success by means
of her patience, diplomacy and absolute discretion,
Agrippina appears to have failed miserably because of her
impatience and arrogance. Neither obtained what she really
wanted, i. e., unhampered access to that power to which they
felt entitled on account of birth, personal qualities and
competence. Tacitus tried to work with this contrasting
material in such a way that emphasizes his "double view" of
these women. Contrary to his reputed mysogyny, their
portrayals present different sides of their personality: in
the end, Livia was a noverca who somehow protected her
alleged victims and restrained her son's worst tendencies,
Agrippina a heroine with fatal character flaws.74
211
4. Livia/s Career: An Assessment
In A.D. 29 Livia fell terminally ill and died, after
waiting in vain for a final visit from her son. Suetonius
reports that she made the arrangements for her own funeral,
which probably were not carried out as she wanted, since
Tiberius, from Capri, did his utmost to annul most of her
final requests. The Senate nevertheless organized her
funeral, which was simple, and decreed one year of mourning
on the part of the women. Tiberius absolutely forbade her
deification, but the senators voted for an arch to be built
in her honor out of gratitude for the benefits she had
bestowed on many of them. The fact that Tiberius
successfully sabotaged the project by promising to build the
arch at his own expense should not diminish the importance
of this unprecedented honor. Honorary votive arches had
never before been erected for a woman, so that the novelty
of the honor is a clear indication of the overwhelming
gratitude and respect that the governing body felt for the
Augusta. She had also left ample legacies to certain
senators who were her favorites, but Tiberius refused to pay
them, as well as other bequests. These legacies were
eventually paid by Caligula at his own accession to the
throne, not out of any respect for his grandmother, but in
the interest of his own popularity.75
Livia's detractors (particularly Tacitus) were forced
to acknowledge that her death had marked a turning point in
212
Tiberius' rule, which seemed now to degenerate into open
tyranny- While she was alive, neither Tiberius nor Sejanus
dared contradict her authority. In this respect, she indeed
had fulfilled a maternal role for the benefit of the coun-
try.76
Inversely, her admirers (in particular, Velleius) had
to admit that, for all her virtues, she had potentia, never
a good thing in Rome, especially in a woman. While
originally potentia indicated the capacity to achieve one's
objectives by means of wealth and clients, it soon acquired
the negative connotation of power derived from social
superiority but devoid of moral and ethical qualities, hence
the arrogance of tyrants. Livia's potentia is a concept
often repeated in the Annales (hardly surprising given
Tacitus' dislike of women in power). What is curious,
however, is finding it mentioned in a rather paradoxical
statement of Velleius, at the end of his praise of Livia:
cuius potentiam nemo sensit nisi aut levatione periculi aut
accessione dignitatis. Perhaps this was his answer to the
charges of her detractors, although a "good" potentia sounds
like an oxymoron. Potentia is related to ambition and
desire to rule; from the very beginning of the Annales this
is attributed to Livia faccedere Tnatrem muliebri impotentia:
serviendum ferainae . ? . ), and in the later books to Agrip-
pina the Younger. This brief sentence, placed by the author
in the mouths of the populace commenting on the consequences
213
of Augustus' death, concisely presents all the basic ele-
ments (minus the poison) of the myth of Livia. Muliebri
impotentia?the main theme of Cato's speech against the
repeal of the Oppian law?is Tacitus' recurring motif in the
narratives concerning the Julio-Claudians. It is the most
unequivocal evidence of the moral degeneration of Rome's
political system and of the influence of irrational Fortuna.
The expression serviendura est feminae is deliberately vague
as to its subject, implying Tiberius', as well as the state-
's, subservience to Livia.77 This is a novel variation on
the familiar theme of subservience to women: since Livia was
unofficially regarded as mother of the country, the entire
state would then be ruled by her "maternal" whims.
The conscious styling of the Tacitean Livia on the
character of Agrippina the Younger has been discussed by R.
H. Martin and M. P. Charlesworth. The evidence ranges from
verbal and structural correspondences (the similar
expressions to describe Agrippa Postumus and Iunius Silanus'
deaths, the use of Tiberius' old name, Nero, at the conclu-
sion of the episode of the death of Augustus, the specific
use of scelus for "poisoning" in both accounts) to Tacitus'
unique borrowing from Livy's Tanaquil episode. Martin also
mentions Tacitus' "self-referential" borrowings: while the
facts narrated in both episodes derive from Claudius' death,
the language is that used for Augustus'. All these elements
are employed to focus the reader's attention on the supposed
214
illegality of Nero's (and?by association?of Tiberius')
accession.78
Tacitus has been occasionally taken to task for his
use of rumors and innuendo, judged by some modern scholars
as incompatible with the aims of true historiography- His
representation of Livia is often quoted as an example of the
author's sharp divergence from "facts." Yet P. Sinclair has
argued that, in the case in question, Tacitus' method
vividly represents the atmosphere of the early principate,
during which observable political events could not always,
or entirely, be explained. In other words, official
explanations often did not suffice, and there often seemed
to be more than met the eye. Therefore, the author's
reliance on unsubstantiated reports, unproven charges and
suppositions recreates the uncertainty, fear and diffidence
engendered by a system in which political debate was dead
and decisive power was no longer vested in the Senate.7*
The above comments accurately describe the reign of
Tiberius and Livia; however, with respect to that of Nero
and Agrippina, Tacitus' tone is different. While expres-
sions denoting rumor, gossip and allegation are frequent in
the Tiberian books, they seem to decrease progressively with
the growth of Agrippina's potentia. For instance, at the
onset of Augustus' fatal illness, the following expressions
are found all compressed in the space of one subchapter:
quidam scelus uxorius suspectabant. followed by dubium an
215
quaesita morte (on the highly controversial death of Fabius
Maximus), utcumque se ea res habuit and by the vague neque
satis compertum est. By contrast, in book 12.66, we find
turn Agrippina. sceleris olim certa et oblatae occasionis
propera ("then Agrippina, who had long decided about the
crime and was ready to seize the best chance")/ followed by
a "factual" description of the "who, when and how" in the
next subchapters, accompanied by adeoque cuncta mox pernotu-
eref ut temporum illorum scriptores prodiderint ("Every
detail became soon so well known that the historians of the
period were able to narrate. . ."). Likewise, Livia's other
supposed crimes, i.e., the murder of Agrippa Postumus and
that of Germanicus, remained shrouded in mystery:
Agrippina's are in the open, and she is unapologetic and
ready to admit to them (in 13.14.3 she threatens to "go
public" with the story of Claudius' poisoning). With
respect to Agrippina's attempted incest, intended to coun-
teract Poppaea's influence, Tacitus will even quote his
sources by name, instead of resorting to the usual rumors:
in fact, he institutes a gradation (Cluvius, Fabius
Rusticus, other authors, fama). Agrippina's openness (or
shamelessness, if one prefers) is evident when her portrait
is compared with that of Livia; her unashamed lust for power
is (oddly) associated with her "masculine" character. In
Tacitus' words, as soon as Agrippina married Claudius
From that moment on, the order in the city was
216
subverted, and everything submitted to a woman,
not on account of her wantonness . . . servitude
was imposed in an almost manly fashion: in public
she was austere, and more often arrogantly proud;
in private she committed no adultery, unless it
brought advantage to her rule.
Versa ex eo civitas, et cuncta feminae oboedie-
bant, non per lasciviam, . . . adductum et quasi
virile servitium: palam severitas ac saepius su-
perbia; nihil domi impudicum, nisi domination!
expediret.
(Ann. 12.7.3)
Although Livia too was portrayed by Tacitus as a domineering
woman (serviendum feminae), her obituary gives an image
apparently diametrically opposed to that of Agrippina:
In her private life, she was as chaste as in the
days of old, more courteous than what was proper
in ancient aristocratic women, a domineering moth-
er, a compliant wife, well attuned to her
husband's intrigues and to her son's hypocrisy.
Sanctitate domus priscum ad morem, comis quam
antiquis feminis probatum, mater impotens, uxor
facilis et cum artibus mariti, simulatione filii
bene composita.
iAnn. 5.1.3)
217
Livia's chastity was absolutely beyond reproach, and?by a
lucky chance?that was also a convenient means to preserve
her power, along with being a uxor facilis (which could
never be said of Agrippina). Nevertheless, both women,
despite their obvious personal differences, had the common
goal of ruling through their sons. Livia's portrait could
be defined as her "mask of power," in the sense of her image
as a role player, a public persona rather than a person (cf.
Augustus' dying words to his friends as to whether he had
played his role well). In Livia's obituary, Tacitus intro-
duces the jarring mater impotens to suggest her true nature
behind the mask, in a fashion similar to his obituary of
Tiberius.*0 Agrippina, on the other hand, does not dis-
guise her true identity; her power and ambition are naked,
because the principate was, at that stage, firmly estab-
lished. The difference between Livia and Agrippina thus
seems more a matter of nuances than of substance; as dis-
cussed in Chapters Five and Six, the masculine virago and
the exemplary wife may actually represent the complementary
sides of the same coin.
218
Notes to Chapter Four
1. N. Purcell, "Livia and the Womanhood of Rome," PCPS 212
(1986), pp. 78-105.
2. H. Willrich, Livia (Leipzig 1911), p. 6, n. 2; G.
Sandels Frauen der Julio-Claudischen Familie (Darmstadt
1912), p. 10. Cf. discussion of the matron and mother in
Chapter Five of the present study.
3. B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician (London 1986) p. 29.
Compare the discussion of the relation between female
stereotypes and those applied to ruling women in Stereotypes
of Women in Power, ed. by B. Garlick, S. Dixon and P. Allen,
(Greenwood Press, 1992) pp. 65-66. For influence on adult
sons, see S. Dixon, The Roman Mother (Norman, Oklahoma
1988), Chapters Five and Seven.
4. S. Dixon (above n. 3), p. 171; also S. Poraeroy,
Goddesses, Whores. Wives, and Slaves (New York 1975) pp. 74,
78. On Hellenistic counterparts, see Women in Hellenistic
Egypt (New York 1984), pp. 11-16. A careful analysis of the
social function of the queen in general has not been so far
undertaken; G. Macurdy's Hellenistic Queens (Baltimore
1932), the only study attempted in this area, does not deal
with the social aspects of Hellenistic queenship, but rather
with the careers of individual queens.
5. For the veto of honorific titles for Tiberius, see Suet.
Tib. 17.2; ara adoptionis. Tac. Ann. 1.14; estimate of
situation after Augustus, Tac. Ann. 1.13.2-3. On the
implications of Livia's new title, see T. Mommsen,
Staatsrecht. II.2, p. 764, 788, 795; E. Kornemann,
Doppelprinzipat und Reichsteilung im Imperium Romanum
(Leipzig 1930), p. 40; U. von Wilamowitz, Sitzunasberichte
der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften (1911), p. 810; H.
Willrich (above n. 2), pp. 56-57; Sandels (above n. 2), p.
22, n. 6, simply presents contrasting views; G. Grether
"Livia and the Roman Imperial Cult," ME 67 (1946), pp. 222-
252, at p. 233, n. 63, and J. Balsdon, Roman Women (New York
1962), p. 94, list Livia's honors without commenting on the
process. Also H. Temporini, Die Frauen am Hofe Traians
(Berlin 1978), p. 41 n. 207.
6. W. Ritter, "Livias Erhebung zur Augusta," Chiron 2
(1972), pp. 313-338.
7. On dementia: Sen. De clem. 1.3.3, 1.5.7; on Octavian's
mercy, Dio, 53.16.4. Cf. D. Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in
the Latin West (Leiden 1987), vol. 1, pp. 1, 108.
219
8. Cic. Pro Plancio, 29.
9. Fishwick (above n. 7), vol. 1, p. 1 and p. 86 n. 16.
Dio 55.14hyphenminus22 on Cinna. Dio 58.2.4 on the naked drunks: in
this case, the death penalty may have been exacted because
Livia's sacrosanctity protected her against a wide range of
offences, physical and moral. Livia's intercession to save
their lives may have a correspondent in the Vestal privilege
to save the lives of those condemned to death that happened
to encounter the Virgins on their way to the execution.
This explanation is possible on account of the ambiguity
inherent in the grant of sacrosanctitas (cf. Chapter 1.5.1
of this study). Tac. Ann. 1.13.6, 5.3, she saves the lives
of senators. On Livia's pietas toward family members, Tac.
Ann. 4.71.4, 5.3.
10. Livy, 10.22: creation of the temple to Pudicitia
Plebeia. Val. Max. 6.1; Tac. Ann. 5.1; Sen. Ad Marciam,
4.3hyphenminus4; Dio 58.2.5hyphenminus6 on Livia's exemplary chastity. See also
Fishwick (above n. 6), vol. 1, pp. 1, 108.
11. C. J. Simpson, "Livia and the Constitution of the Aedes
Concordiae," Historia 4 (1991), pp. 449hyphenminus55. On concordia as
one of the wife's duties, see S. Dixon (above n. 3), p. 235;
Nu. ?. Kampen, "Between Public and Private: Women as
Historical Subjects in Roman Art," in Women's History and
Ancient History, ed. S. Pomeroy (1991), p. 231; S.
Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford 1991), pp. 245hyphenminus47, 251hyphenminus
53. W. H. Gross, Iulia Augusta (Gottingen 1962), p. 59 on
Salus coinages, and also J. R. Fears, "The Cult of Virtues,"
ANRW 2.17.2, p. 891 on Spanish coins of LiviahyphenminusSalus, and R.
Etienne, "Le Culte Imperial dans la Peninsule Iberique,"
BEFAR 191 (Paris 1958) pp. 321hyphenminus322, 329, 428, 430. Ovid Ix
Pon. 3.1.125 princeps feminaf Cons, ad Liviam 349hyphenminus356 Livia
as princeps. See also N. Purcell, "Livia and the Womanhood
of Rome," PCPS 212 (1986), pp. 78hyphenminus82.
12. W. K. Lacey, "Patria Potestas," in The Family in
Ancient Rome ed. B. Rawson (Ithaca 1986), pp. 121hyphenminus144, esp.
pp. 123hyphenminus133, 139hyphenminus140. See also Chapter 1.5 and Chapter
2.1.2hyphenminus1.3 of this study.
13. The correlation between the titles of Augusta and of
Mater/Genitrix/Parens (Patriae, Orbis etc.) and those of
Augustus/Pater Patriae have been emphasized also by H.
Temporini (above n. 5), p. 42 n. 210. On giving titles to
the Augusta, see Tac. Ann. 1.14, Dio 57.12. Spanish
inscriptions, CIL 2.2038. Livia and Alfidia as
benefactresses, IGR 4.249, CIG 3.4711, SEG 28.1227.
14. With regard to the sacrosanctitas. see the discussion
in Chapter 1.5.1 of the present study.
220
15. J. Gage, "Divus Augustus,n Rev. Arch. 34 (1931), p. 16
on Livia's precedence. Fishwick (above n. 7), vol. 1 part
1, p. 163 n. 83, on Livia's anomalous position. Rex/Regina
Sacrorum, see Temporini (above n. 5), p. 42 n. 210. For
Tiberius' use of titles, see Suet. Tib. 26.
16. Tac. Ann. 4.6; Dio 57.7.2-6; Suet. Tib. 30-31 positive
evaluation of Tiberius7 first years. Tac. Ann. 2.87 on his
care for the welfare of common people and provinces. Dio
57.10.5, Tac. Ann. 2.48 lack of covetuousness. Suet. Tib.
33, Dio 57.7.6 interest in justice. Dio 57.7.4-5
impartiality, interpreted as deviousness, Dio 57.1.1-6, Tac.
Ann. 1.11.2-3. Cf. R. Seager, Tiberius (Berkeley 1972), pp.
123-139; B. Levick Tiberius the Politician (London 1976),
pp. 92-97, 125-135, 181-182.
17. Suet. T_ib. 50 - 54; Tac. Ann? 3.64, 5.1; Dio 57.3.3.
18. Suet. Tjjb. 21, 50, 51; Dio 57.3.3, 12.2-3; Tac. Ann.
1.7.7.
19. W.-R. Megow, Kameen von Augustus bis Alexander Severus
(Berlin 1987), pp. 203-206.
20. According to W. H. Gross (above, n. 11), pp. 15-16, the
Claudian images of the Diva Augusta represent Livia sitting,
holding sacrificial cup and ears of wheat, like Ceres-
Demeter, and were probably modeled on a statue in the temple
of Divus Augustus in Rome.
21. Gross (above, n. 11), pp. 106-107.
22. Livia and Tiberius together on obverse, RPC vol. 1,
part 1, n. 2369 (Pergamon), n. 2673 (Mastaura), n. 2842
(Aphrodisias), nn. 3053-3054 (Tripolis). More frequently,
Livia is on the reverse. Livia alone on obverse, n. 2568
(Mysomakedones), n. 2699 (Magnesia on the Maeander), n. 2840
(Aphrodisias), n. 2865 (Apollonia Salbace), n. 2886
(Cibyra), n. 3148 (Eumeneia), n. 3160 (Eucarpeia), nn. 4007-
4014 (Augusta), to quote a few.
23. BMC Lydia (Magnesia), p. 144, nn. 47-48.
24. Tac. Ann- 3. 66-69, 4.15; Dio 57.23.4. RPC vol. 1, p.
1, n. 2469. The caption in question exemplifies the
ambiguity favored by Tiberian representations of Livia in
official quality. The Greek word for Senate can be used
with a feminine article, therefore the caption can be
interpreted literally as "The August Senate"; however, the
feminine form of the adjective also refers clearly to the
image of Livia.
221
25. SEG 24.613.
26. SEG 22.152 reports an inscription from the Agora of
Athens, in which Livia is associated with Artemis Boulaia
(see also A. E. 1938.83 for an incomplete version), a
divinity which protected the Boule, the Athenian equivalent
of the Senate. See J. Oliver, "Livia as Artemis Boulaia,"
C. P. 60 (1965), p. 179.
27. The senators who had debts of gratitude with Livia: Q.
Haterius (Tac. Ann. 1.13.6); Galba (Suet. Galba 5); Otho's
grandfather (Suet. Otho 1); Fufius Geminus (Tac. Anp.
5.2.2). Reactions of the Senate at Livia's illness: Tac.
Ann? 3.64, 12.42; Dio 59.3, 60.22. Carpentum as honor
transmitted to imperial women: Suet. Claudius 17. Coinages:
Grether (above n. 5), p. 237; F. Sandels (above n. 2), p.
26; L. Ollendorff, "Livia,1? R. E. 13 (1927), col. 921. The
knights also joined in expressing relief over Livia's
recovery, making a votive offering on her behalf to Fortuna
Equestris, whose temple was in Antium (Tac. Ann. 3.71.1).
28. R. Bauman, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome (London
1992), p. 133.
29. R. Seager (above, n. 16), pp. 152-162; B. Levick
(above, n. 16), pp. 192-195.
30. Seager (above, n. 16), p. 152. Discussing Tacitus'
reports Seager (p. 161) says that the trials mentioned by
Tacitus were probably just the tip of the iceberg, selected
by the author because they showed the expansion of the law
and the increase in the denunciations of distinguished
defendants, in whose cases Tiberius got personally involved.
31. Tac. Ann. 1.73.2-4 on Falanius, 3.49-50 on Clutorius
Priscus. Cf. R. Bauman (above, n. 28), pp. 133-135.
32. Tac. Ann. 1.13.6 on Livia's intervention to save
Haterius' father, 2.51 on Haterius' debt with Drusus and
Germanicus. Suet. Claud. 27: Claudius' son Drusus was
betrothed to Sejanus' daughter.
33. Tac. Ann. 2.50 on Ap. Varilla, 1.14.1 on the title
Parens Patriae proposed for Livia, 4.34 on Cremutius Cordus.
E. Kornemann, Tiberius (Stuttgart I960), pp. 129-130, for
sacrosanctitas as a suitable cause for prosecution. Suet.
Tib. 28, 59; Tac. Ann. 2.50 on Tiberius' lenient attitude
toward slander, and 3.66-69, 70, 4.18-20 on his leniency on
other cases of treason. Tac. Ann. 3.37, 38 on punishment
for improper use of maiestas.
222
34. Gross (above, eta. 11), pp. 51, 59. The model for the
portrait of Iulia Augusta was probably based on statuary
originals, which portrayed Livia in full figure, seated, as
opposed to the mode prevalent under Augustus, the bust or
head, which seems to indicate the absence of a set statuary
type. From A.D. 22 on new types, the Salus and the Pietas
emerge (of the two, the Pietas is the least identifiable
with Livia's features).
35. RPC n. 73, Romula; RPC n. 233, Tarraco; CIL 2.2038,
Anticaria: Iuliae Aug. Drusi Div. Matri Ti. Caesaris Aug.
Principis et Conservatoris. et Drusi Germanici. Genetrici
Orbis M. Cornelius Proculus Pontufex Caesarum.
36. RPC n. 849. SEG 28.1227, Greek inscription quoted by
S.R.F. Price, "Gods and Emperors," JHS 104 (1984), p. 88.
Dedications to Livia's parents: CIL 9.3660 (Marruvium Marsi)
to M. Livius Drusus Claudianus, CIL 9.3661 to Alfidia
(bilingual), the Greek version praises her as the origin of
the greatest goods for the universe.
37. M. P. Charlesworth, "Providentia and Aeternitas,"
Harvard Theol. Rev. 29 (1936), pp. 107hyphenminus132, esp. pp. 122hyphenminus
124; R. S. Rogers, Studies in the Reian of Tiberius
(Baltimore 1943).
38. C.I.G. 1.313, Athens; C.I.A. 3.316 quoted by Grether
(above, n. 5), p. 230 n. 43; I.G.R. 4.180 (C.I.G. 3642),
Lampsacus.
39. I.G.R. 4.319, Pergamon; C.I.G. 1.1775, Larissa; EEC n.
833 Oea, nn. 796hyphenminus797 Thapsus, nn. 721hyphenminus726 Utica.
40. W.hyphenminusR. Megow (above, n. 19), p. 254 B15.
41. Livy 29.10.4, 38.18.9hyphenminus10; Pol. 31.37; Plut. M^Ehyphenminus 17.5
on Cybele as guarantor of victory. Suet. Tib. 2.3, Ovid
Fasti 4.305hyphenminus344, Livy 29.14 on Claudia Quinta. Suet. Aug.
68 on Octavian as priest of Cybele. Dio 48.43.4, Val. Max.
1.8.11, Tac. Ann. 4.64.3 divine protection of the Claudii.
Cf. I. Becher, "Der Kult der Mater Magna in Augusteischer
Zeit," Klio 73 (1991), pp. 157hyphenminus170 and R. McKay Wilhelm,
"Cybele: the Great Mother of the Augustan Order," Vergilius
34 (1988), pp. 77hyphenminus101.
42. I. Becher (above, n. 41), p. 165 n. 72 on Cybele
against Julian Venus; R. M. Wilhelm (above, n. 41), pp. 84hyphenminus
91 on Cybele protector of the Trojans. Cf. also Becher, pp.
168, who notes however a certain ambivalence in Virgil, p.
169.
223
43. Gross (above, eta. 11), pp. 82hyphenminus84, and Grether (above, n.
5), p. 229 n. 38. LiviahyphenminusAphrodite: I.G.R. 4.257 (Assos),
SEG 15.532 (Chios). Coinages: R.P.C. vol. 1, part 1, nn.
2464, 2466; BMC Asiatic Bosphorus, pp. 51, 54. Identity
between Venus Victrix and Genetrix: M. Speidel, "Venus
Victrix Roman and Oriental," ANRW 2.17.4, p. 226.
44. Cf. P. Zanker, Augustus und die Macht der Bilder
(Munich 1990), p. 236.
45. This discussion is heavily based on D. Fishwick (above,
n. 7), vol. 1, part 1, p. 85 and vol. 2, part 1, pp. 455hyphenminus
465. See also J. R. Fears (above, n. 11) 2.17.2 p. 890 n.
292 (Salus and Iustitia do not represent imperial ladies),
p. 891: Spanish coinages represent Livia as Pietas and
Salus. For Spanish coinages of LiviahyphenminusS_a_lus, see also R.
Etienne (above, n. 7), pp. 321hyphenminus322, 329, 428, 430. Gross,
(above n. 11), p. 59, states that the Pietas portrait is the
least reliable; however, the issues of Caesaraugusta seem to
be closer to Livia's features.
46. S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power (Cambridge 1986), pp.
16hyphenminus17, 21hyphenminus22, 107hyphenminus108, 114hyphenminus116; for the discussion of temple
architecture, see Chapter Six, pp. 13 3hyphenminus169.
47. S. Price (above, n. 46), pp. 134hyphenminus135, 176hyphenminus178, 208hyphenminus210.
48. S. Price (above, n. 46), pp. 146hyphenminus156. C.I.G. 1.1775
Larissa; SE? 2. 696, cf. R. Mellor, "The Goddess Roma," ANRW
2.17.2, p. 981. SEG 4.707 (I.G.R. 48.4.144) Cyzicus.
49. Price (above, n. 46), pp. 146hyphenminus156, 210. Fishwick
(above, n. 7), vol. 1, part 1, p. 29. See also T. Pekary,
Das Romische Kaiserbildnis (Berlin 1985) p. 60. The only
place where the adjective "new" meant reincarnation was, not
surprisingly, Egypt. Livia is referred to as "new Isis",
Cleopatra's epithet, in an inscription of A.D. 21 (C.I.G.
3.4711).
50. Assos, I.G.R. 4.249hyphenminus250; Lampsacus, I.G.R. 4.180,
C.I.G. 3642; Pergamon, I.G.R. 4.319; Cyzicus, SEG 4.707,
33.1055, I.G.R. 4.144; Larissa, C.I.G. 1.1775; Thespiae, SEG
31.514; Attalia, SEG 2.696. Antonia Tryphaena, Tac. Ann.
2.66hyphenminus67; see also G. Macurdy (above, n. 4), pp. 10hyphenminus11. L.
Ollendorff (above, n. 27), col. 914.
51. Price (above, n. 46), p. 187.
52. Price (above, n. 46), pp. 136hyphenminus145; Fishwick (above, n.
7), vol. 2, part 1, pp. 518hyphenminus525; E. Kornemann, "Neue
Dokumente zum lakonischen Kaiserkult," Schlesischen
Gesellschaft fur vaterlandische Cultur, Heft 1, Breslau
224
(1929), pp. 1-31.
53. BMC Ionia n. 187 rev., BMC Lydia n. 48 rev., RPC vol. 1
part 1 nn. 2453, 2673, 2842. Fishwick (above, n. 7) vol. 1
part 2, pp. 271-273, 283.
54. Fishwick (above, n. 7) vol. 2 part 1, pp. 482, 484,
490, 516-518. CIL 11.3303 Forum Clodii; CIL 6.29681 unknown
colony celebrated Livia's birthday in A.D. 108; CIL 6.1.2024
Acta Fratrum Arvalium on sacrifice on Augusta's birthday-
55. Fishwick (above, n. 7), vol.2, part 1, pp. 495, 510,
514, 564, 569. CIL 6.1.2024, 2027 vota Pro salute: IGR
4.353 food and drink distributions at the hymnodoi's
celebrations in Pergamon.
56. Fishwick (above, n. 7), vol. 1 part 2, pp. 266, 270-
273, 283. Cf. also R. Etienne (above, n. 11), pp. 190-192,
199, 234-235, 290. CIL 2.194 flamen of Livia and Gennanicus
at Olisipo, CIL 5.2.6954 flaminica at Augusta Taurinorura,
CIL 12. 1363 flaminica at Vasio Vocontiorum and 12.4249 at
Baeterrae in Narbonensis. AH 1915.95 Emerita, 1988.422
Corfiniura, 1970.269 (CIL 10.7501) Gaulos. CIL 10.961
sacerdos at Pompeii.
57. Tac. AjQn. 4.1, 7; Dio, 57.7-13.6. B. Levick (above, n.
16), pp. 148-179. R. Syme, "History or Biography: The Case
of Tiberius Caesar," Historia 23 (1974), p. 487. Livia's
responsibility for Tiberius' secession: Suet. Tib. 51, Dio
57.12.6, Tac. Ann- 4.57.3.
58. R. Hanslik, "Agrippina" Per Kleine Paulv. Band 1
(Munich 1979), col. 148; J. P. Balsdon, "Agrippina," Oxford
Classical Dictionary 2nd ed., p. 31 on the marriage of
Agrippina and Germanicus. Suet. Aug. 34 on Agrippina and
Germanicus as examples of marriage laws. The children named
after Livia and Tiberius: Drusus, Nero, Livia Drusilla and
Julia Livia. CIL 6.3998, 4252, Suet. C_a_l. 7, quoted by L.
Ollendorff (above, n. 27), col. 920 on Livia's involvement
with the children.
59. Suet. QMl- 1, 3-6; Tac. Aim. 1.33, 2.73, 82-83; Dio
57.18.6 on Germanicus' popularity. Tac. Ann. 2.5.2, 2.26 on
Germanicus' near insubordination in Germany; 2.58 his
unauthorized trip to Egypt; 2.53-55.1, 2.59 "Antonian"
tendences. Tac. Ann. 1.36.3, 1.39, 1.49 on Germanicus'
ineffectual handling of the revolt; 1.50-51.1 attacks on
unarmed Germans; 1.64-65 near defeat, Romans saved by the
Germans' greed; 2.23-24 ill-advised sea-voyage, ending in
heavy losses. Compare with Drusus' ability to turn the
Germans against each other, Tac. Ann. 1.62, and 1.63-64.1-2
Tiberius' own diplomatic victories, 1.65 Tiberius' desire
225
for tranquillity. Tac. Ann. 1.40-41, 1.44.1-2, 1.69; Suet.
Cal. 9 on Agrippina and the army-
60. Speech of Caecina Severus: Tac. Ann. 2.33-34. Trial of
Silius and Sosia, law against crimes of magistrates' wives:
Tac. Ann. 4.19-20. See also A. J. Marshall, "Tacitus and
the Governor's Lady," G&R 22 (1975) pp. 11-18, and R. Bauman
(above, n. 28), p. 252 n. 32. Interesting, although not
backed by hard evidence, is Bauman's idea that Sacrovir's
rebellion may have been organized by Agrippina's Gallic
clients to destabilize Tiberius' regime (pp. 146-147). On
pp. 152-153, however, he apparently contradicts himself and
claims that Agrippina's efforts were aimed at eliminating
Sejanus only (also Levick, above, n. 16, p. 158).
61. Tac. Ann. 4.52; Suet. Tib. 53.1 reports the comment as
Tiberius' reply to Agrippina's unwise remarks on Germanicus'
death. Tacitus' version seems to support the impression of
the author's fundamental ambivalence toward Agrippina.
62. M. Pani, Tendenze Politiche della Successione al
Principato di Augusto (Bari 1979), pp. 78-79, 84-88 on the
divinizing attitudes of Germanicus' circle. Tac. Ann. 2.84
on Livilla's twins, and 2.43.6 on Drusus' devotion to
Germanicus. B. Levick (above, n. 16), pp. 158, 162 on
Sejanus' plan to become regent.
63. L. Rutland, "Women as Makers of Kings in Tacitus'
Annals," CH 72 (1978), pp. 15-29 on Tacitus' uniqueness in
his treatment of Livia. L. Ollendorff (above, n. 27), col.
903, G. E. Rizzo, Le Pitture della Casa di Livia, fasc. 3,
pp. 25-30, on the paintings of Io.
64c Val. Max. 4.3.3 on Antonia living in Livia's house.
Jos. 18.181-182, Dio 65.14 on the discovery of Sejanus'
plot. Tac. Ann.. 4.12.3-4 inhiare domination!.
65. Suet. Cal. 10.1, Veil. 2. 130.4 on new chronology of
Agrippina and Nero's relegation. Cf. R. S. Rogers (above,
n. 37), pp. 54-58; Seager (above, n. 16), p. 209; R. Bauman
(above, n. 28), pp. 254-55 n. 58.
66. R. Syme, "History or Biography: the Case of Tiberius
Caesar," Historia 23 (1974), pp. 481-496, esp. p. 487; E.
Kornemann (above, n. 33), p. 180.
67. L. Rutland (above, n. 63), pp. 28-29. Cf. also F.
Santoro L'hoir, The Rhetoric of Gender Terms (Leiden 1992),
pp. 122-126 on the contrast between the immorality of Roman
aristocratic women, especially imperial, and the chastity of
German women.
226
68. Tac. Ann. 2.69.3, 2.71.2, 2.74.2 the poisoner Martina,
3.1, 3.4 people and soldiers mourning Germanicus, 3.3
Tiberius and Livia create suspicions by not appearing at the
funeral, 3.7.2 mysterious death of Martina, 3.12.3, 3.13.2
Piso charged of sedition, 3.15, 3.17.2hyphenminus4 Plancina saved by
Livia, popular indignation.
69. Tac. Ann. 2.34 on Urgulania, 2.43.4 on Piso and
Plancina's selfhyphenminusesteem. Cic. Verr. 2.1.94, Val. Max. 3.8.6,
8.3 on women appearing in the courts. Cf. also R. Bauman
(above, n. 28), pp. 48hyphenminus50. J. Hellegouarc'h, Le Vocabulaire
Latin des Relations et des Partis Politiques (Paris 1963),
pp. 28hyphenminus29, 54hyphenminus55, 204 on gratja and amicitia. N. Rouland,
Pouvoir Politique et Dependance Personelle dans l'Antiquite'
Romaine (Brussels 1979), p. 524, on clientes.
70. Cic. Pro Cae. 14.34, Suet. Tib. 2 on the Vestal Clauhyphenminus
dia; Tac. Ann. 2.34 on Urgulania and Piso. Cf. R. Bauman
(above, n. 28), p. 135 on Livia's reaction.
71. Tac. Ann. 2.34.4 on Urgulania. E. Kornemann (above, n.
33), p. 116 on monarchic elements of Livia's patronage, and
G. E. Mu. de St. Croix, "Suffragium: from Vote to Patronage,"
British Journal of Sociology 5 (1954), pp. 33hyphenminus48, esp. pp.
42hyphenminus44 on Urgulania as a client of Livia.
72. Tac. Ann.4.17.3 on Agrippina's party, 2.57.2hyphenminus3 on
hatred between Germanicus and Piso stirred up by Germanicus'
friends. Cf. R. Bauman (above, n. 28), pp. 154hyphenminus156 on
Agrippina's plans.
73. J. Hellegouarc'h (above, n. 69), p. 114, n. 2 on parhyphenminus
tes; Pani (above, n. 62), pp. 96hyphenminus101 on Agrippina's group.
On the importance of Agrippina, see Levick's contrasting
opinion: "... Agrippina was a nuisance, not a threat and
overestimated her own importance. . ."; (above, n. 16), p.
167.
74. See K. Gilmartin Wallace "Women in Tacitus," AKRW
2.33.5, pp. 3564hyphenminus3565; M. Kaplan, "Agrippina Semper Atrox,"
Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 1 (1979), pp.
410hyphenminus417; B. Baldwin, "Women in Tacitus," Prudentia 4 (1972),
pp. 83hyphenminus101.
75. Suet. Tib. 51, Gaius 16, Tac. Ann. 5.1hyphenminus2, Dio 58.2.1hyphenminus6,
on Livia's death.
76. Tac. Ann. 5.3. Suet. Tib. 61, seems to imply this,
though he does not refer to her specifically.
227
77. Veil. 2.13Q.5, Livia's obituary. J. Hellegouarc'h
(above, n. 69), pp. 238-242, on potentia. Tac. Ann. 1.4.5,
2.34.4, 4.12.4, 4.21.1, 4.57.3, 5.1.3 on Livia's potentia.
Cic. Cael. 62, on Clodia mulier potens: Suet. Nero 28.2, on
Agrippina ferox atque impotens inulier. Cf. also L. Rutland
(above, n. 63), pp. 15-29, particularly p. 18, and F. Sant-
oro L'hoir (above, n. 67), pp. 50-51 n. 29, 122-123, 133-
134.
78. R. H. Martin, "Tacitus and the Death of Augustus," C?>
(1955), vol. 5, pp. 123-128, and H. P- Charlesworth, "Livia
and Tanaquil," CS 41 (1927), pp. 55-57.
79. P. Sinclair, "Rhetorical Generalizations in Annales 1-
6," ANRW 2.33-4, pp. 2796-2829, especially pp. 2802-2808,
2813.
80. Cf. R. G. Tanner, "Thought and Style in Tacitus," ANRW
2.33.4, pp. 2699-2700, on the mask of power. Suet. Aug. 99
on Augustus' last remarks. Tac. Ann. 6.5.3 on Tiberius'
personality.
Chapter Five
The Matron and the Tyrant
The preceding chapters have followed the evolution of
Livia's political career, from its beginnings as the wife of
a revolutionary leader to the achievement of the highest
honors ever for a Roman woman. Her marriage to Augustus
symbolized the reconciliation of the social classes in the
peace and stability of the new regime, based on the
reestablishment of those demarcations which the civil wars
had shattered. Under the auspices of Augustus' national
program all the different segments of society were reunited,
in allegiance to the rejuvenated Roman state, personified in
the archetypal figure of the Pater Patriae. Livia had an
important role to play in this program, inspiring the women
by her personal example of wife, mother and patron. This
she did by surrendering her sons to Augustus' dynastic
politics and by closely, but often unofficially, cooperating
with him.
One would look in vain to the historical Livia for
intimations of the sinister stepmother conjured by Tacitus.
Yet, the negative stereotype survived for centuries, despite
recent attempts by scholars to redress the balance. The
reasons for the appeal of the harsh stepmother of the Julio-
Claudians go beyond Tacitus' art and the impact of his work
on traditional education. They can be traced to an
elemental ambivalence toward powerful females and maternal
228
229
figures who, although essential for the survival of
tradition, were perceived as having ambitions incompatible
with that tradition. The remaining chapters of this study
discuss Roman female stereotypes and role models whose
elements contributed to the creation of the literary Livia.
1. Stereotypes and Role Models: The Matron
In an article on the use of anecdotal evidence for the
principate, Richard Sailer stresses the pervasiveness of
anecdotes ranging from dinner-party repartee and gossip to
such exalted genres as oratory, moral treatise, biography
and antiquarian disquisition. Despite the acknowledged
inaccuracy of anecdotes, even serious historians have not
been able to resist employing them where ideological ends
were served. In keeping with the didactic and moralistic
thrust of most Roman literature, moral exempla from the
past, often in anecdotal form, were used as "illustrative
material'? to create stereotypes of virtues and vices.
Emperors were especially susceptible to this kind of
personification: Augustus was normally used to embody
clemency and tolerance, Tiberius meanness and duplicity,
Caligula gratuitous cruelty, and Claudius foolish
subservience to women and freedmen. The same could happen
to their womenfolk, and the Julio-Claudians have provided
fascinating specimens of virtues and vices for moralists and
historians alike: Livia the schemer (whom Caligula dubbed
"Ulixes in woman's clothes"), the two Agrippinas,
230
domineering and quick-tempered, the two Julias and Messalina
the profligates, and the two Octavias, innocent victims of
the men they married.1
However plausible these characterizations may seem,
they reveal the ideological bias of the writers and the
historians who deploy them. Many historians belonged to the
senatorial class and were unsympathetic toward the monarchy
and the Julio-Claudians, who founded it. In addition, their
portrayals of influential imperial women are often vitiated
by the deep-seated diffidence of Roman males toward
politically ambitious women. While the Romans prided them-
selves on their total exclusion of women from official
political life, their attitude toward political activities
of women was rather more complex than that of Classical
Athens where, according to Pericles, the greatest glory for
a woman was to be the least talked about by men, whether in
praise or in criticism. Unlike the Athenians, the Romans
did not try to eliminate women from public life altogether;
on the contrary, women played important roles both in the
legends about Rome's origins and in the historical events of
the republic, exercising their influence for political ends,
good or evil, through their male relatives and connections.
This was due to the leading role played by aristocratic
families, and to the character of Roman family life.
Upper-class women assumed pivotal importance both as
facilitators of political alliances and as repositories and
231
mediators of their own family's tradition to future
generations. From childhood on a woman of the Roman
aristocracy was steeped in politics, learned through
involvement in the careers of her male relatives. When she
married she spent her life not in the seclusion of the
women's quarters, which did not really exist in Roman houses
(as they did in Greek houses), but at the visible center of
domestic activity; the atriumt an area of public access
similar in function to a modern reception room, was where
the matron and her women gathered to spin wool. Although
subordinate to her husband by custom and law, she was
nevertheless the domina, mistress of the house and guardian
of its wealth and of its traditions, responsible for the
material and moral welfare of its inhabitants.2
Since the matron's most important task was that of
bearing and rearing children to continue the family line and
surpass, not just emulate, its legacy of excellence, her
most valued quality was chastity, which for the practical
Romans assumed not only a moral connotation, but an
eminently material one as well. Epitaphs and inscriptions
indicate as stock epithet for wives "chaste" (casta),
"modest" (pudica), "frugal" ffrugi), "sparing"
(conservatrix^, the ideal wife being defined "as thrifty as
she was chaste" (tarn frugi tamque pudica), combining practi-
cal trustworthiness with sexual loyalty. Having borne
children who resembled her husband was an additional merit
232
fpatri similes uno de coniuae nati.). Fertility in a woman
was important, but even more crucial was her capacity to
protect and guarantee the seed of her husband. The social
recognition of a woman's worth, through her sexual loyalty
and good performance of her domestic duties, symbolized the
family's ability to protect its material boundaries, i.e.,
the family's patrimony. Female chastity thus became a
commodity that could be used to acquire or enhance a
family's power. The perfect matron, therefore, does not
squander the material patrimony of the family through
luxurious living nor the genetic one through wantonness; on
the contrary, she devotes herself to the preservation and
increase of the patrimony. Inscriptions often refer to her
as "sitting or remaining at home" (domiseda), busy at her
lanificium, the preparation and spinning of wool for
clothing and other domestic needs, a typically feminine
activity of great importance in antiquity, given that most
clothing was homemade. Spinning wool is therefore especial-
ly appropriate to the chaste housewife. One of the most
famous wool-spinners of Roman tradition is Lucretia, whose
example Livia seems consciously to have followed. The
Etruscan Tanaquil, under her Roman name of Gaia Caecilia,
was also curiously associated with spinning and woolworking
in the marriage rituals. As for Livia and her female rela-
tives, Suetonius says that Augustus preferred to wear cloth-
ing made in his house by his sister, wife, daughter or
233
granddaughters?3
Chastity was also an essential requisite of the matron
because she was responsible for the education of the
children, not only during the early years but also, in some
cases, in later life. According to Tacitus, the protracted
contact of the young with their mother and senior female
relatives ensured in more virtuous times that the future
leaders would grow up honest, virtuous, and disciplined.
The mother and the elderly relative who supported her in
this task must be of irreproachable habits, since they were
in charge not only of the children's studies but also their
games and recreation. Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi,
personally supervised (as did the mothers of Caesar and
Augustus) the education of her sons and groomed them to
become great men in her family's tradition.* In Tacitus'
own times, the mother of Julius Agricola, his father-in-law,
took care to set her straying son's feet in the right
direction. Tacitus recalls:
I remember that he himself used to recount how in
his early youth he thirsted for the philosophical
studies with more intensity than it was given to a
Roman and a Senator, if his mother's wisdom had
not constrained his burning mind.
Memoria teneo solitum ipsum narrare se prima in
iuventa studium philosophiae acrius, ultra quam
234
concessum Romano ac senatori, hausisse, ni
prudentia matris incensuin ac flagrantem animum
coercuisset.
fAgr. 4.4)
The remarkable influence exercised by the Roman mother
on her children thus served to reinforce the precepts and
code of behavior dictated by the mos maiorum, the tradition
which in Rome had the force of law. As the passage
concerning Agricola's youth makes clear, the mother saw fit
to force her son to abandon his much-beloved philosophical
studies in favor of those disciplines essential to a future
Roman senator, destined to hold positions of command that
required a different type of knowledge and expertise.
Vergil spells out the task assigned to the Romans by the
gods in Book Six of the Aeneid, where Anchises prophesies:
Others will beat out bronze breathing in softer
lines (at least I believe), and will draw living
features out of marble, will plead cases better,
and describe the paths of heaven with pointers and
forecast rising stars: you, Roman, remember to
rule over other peoples (these will be your
special skills), to add civilization to peace, to
spare your subjects and vanquish the haughty.
Excudunt alii spirantia mollius aera/(credo
equidem), vivos ducent de marraore vultus,/ orabunt
235
causas melius, caelique meatus/describent radio et
surgentia sidera dicent:/ tu regere imperio
populos, Romane, memento/(hae tibi erunt artes),
pacique imponere morem,/ parcere subiectis et
debellare superbos.
(6.847-853)
While other peoples have been granted excellence in
arts and sciences, the Romans have been assigned the duty to
ensure peace and stability, the conditions without which the
arts and sciences would be unable to flourish. Agricola's
mother, in steering her son's interest away from philosophy
toward more practical concerns, fulfills her duty to her
family's tradition and to the state. Like the mothers of
earlier times, she identifies herself entirely with her
family and with the essentially aristocratic ethos that
regulated every type of interaction in Roman society. As
such, women's involvement was welcome because it promoted
the perpetuation of the social and cultural fabric of the
state and did not infringe upon the principle of oligarchic
male leadership.5
Chastity and loyalty to tradition were not only
important to family life but were vital to the very survival
of the state on the religious level as well. No other cult
was deemed so essential to the preservation of Rome as that
of Vesta, and in no other case did the pollution of the
individuals in charge of a cult cause the same panic and
236
hysteria as a Vestal's breach of the vow of chastity. While
the accidental extinction of the sacred fire was not
regarded as jeopardizing the safety of the state, the charge
of sexual immorality spelled death for the unchaste Vestal.
In times of national disasters, when the wholeness of the
state seemed threatened from the outside, the Vestals were
more likely to become the scapegoats of national hysteria.
In view of the examples quoted, it seems reasonable to
assume that in classical antiquity chastity was considered
the foundation of many feminine virtues and was essential to
the welfare of the state. In the specific case of the
Romans, one could claim that the proven virtue of their
women in adherence to tradition was one of the most
important pediments on which their claims to universal rule
rested.6
The virtues that the Romans held to be inherent in
their race, such as discipline, unquestioning obedience,
dignity, trustworthiness, piety, endurance and manliness,
were also thought to set them apart from both the wily and
corrupted Easterners and the savage and unruly Northerners.
As a consequence it was necessary to safeguard these
essentially aristocratic qualities by preventing or limiting
to a minimum any encroachment on the part of the "lower"
classes of people. The original prohibitions of marriage
between patricians and plebeians, introduced by the
decemvirs, were abolished only in 446 B.C. by the Lex
237
Canuleia, while Augustan law prevented people of the
senatorial class from marrying freed people. Augustus, in
his effort to reestablish traditional values, had made it an
important point of his policy not to extend the benefits of
Roman citizenship indiscriminately. Suetonius says that
Augustus "thought it most important not to let the native
Roman stock be tainted with foreign or servile blood and
granted Roman citizenship very sparingly" (Magni praeterea
existimans sincerum atque ab omni colluvione perearini ac
servilis sanguinis incorruptum servare popuium . . . ,
civitates Romanas parcissime dedit); he even refused
requests for citizenship from Livia and Tiberius on behalf
of their clients and admonished his heirs to be likewise
sparing in granting citizenship.7
2. Lucretia
The points discussed above are exemplified in the story
of Lucretia as narrated by Livy, in which feminine chastity
plays a fundamental role in the valorization of the all-
Roman way against foreign customs. Lucretia's noble
behavior and the choices she makes when faced with dishonor
to both herself and her family reflect the tenets of proper
wifely and filial behavior and, through her exaltation as a
model of the Roman woman, convey a specific political
message.
The legend of Lucretia originated in Ardea and was
subsequently imported to Rome, where it was used not only to
238
legitimate the change of government, but also in the form of
an aetiological myth, to explain the origins of Roman ideals
concerning public and private behavior, politics and
sexuality. One may wonder why, of all possible aetiological
explanations, it was necessary to select a story of rape to
mark the institution of a new political order. Rape and the
consequent pollution seem to strike at the heart of a
community's identity. Herodotus notes the tradition that
repeated rapes of women were the determining factor in the
development of enmity between East and West. Tales of
tyrants' lust, innocent victims and of the former's
overthrow for sexual transgressions abound in Greek and
Roman historiography."
The Lucretia legend describes how, in the course of a
slow-moving military campaign, Collatinus and his cousins,
the royal princes, decide to verify personally the conduct
of their respective wives, about whom they have been
boasting, to determine whose spouse is the most virtuous.
Setting out from camp, they reach the city late at night to
find the princesses intent on merrymaking with their friends
in convivio luxuque. wasting time and money and, possibly,
being disloyal to their husbands. Not so Lucretia, who is
found sitting in the middle of the house, engrossed in her
wool-working among her women, also busy at their spinning.
She is the center of the house, not only spatially (in medio
aedium sedentem; inter ancillas^ but also in terms of her
239
activity: instead of wasting her husband's wealth in luxury,
she is engaged in an occupation which promotes the welfare
of his dependents.9 Her chastity is fully recognized
fspectata castitas) and brings honor to her husband, who
wins the wager. But to Lucretia, the victory is a harbinger
of ruin: the word spectata draws attention to a certain
voyeurism on the part of the men, who gaze and judge her
behavior, as if her modesty were on display. She becomes a
spectaculum; while attracting the attention of men, she also
attracts lust. In fact it is her chastity, more than her
beauty, that becomes a powerful aphrodisiac for Sextus
Tarquinius, who determines that he must seduce her.10
After having suffered violence at the hands of Sextus,
Lucretia chooses death over a life of shame. Despite her
kinsmen's attempts to console her, she refuses to set a bad
example for her countrywomen: "Even if I absolve myself from
wrongdoing, I am not freeing myself from punishment; nor
will any unchaste woman live after this, taking Lucretia as
an example" (Ego me etsi peccato absolve supplicio non
libero; nee ulla deinde inpudica Lucretiae exemplo
vivet)." Paradoxically, she preserves her honor and that
of her family by submitting to violence in order to avoid an
even more infamous form of dishonor, for in order to conquer
her, Sextus had threatened to kill her and lay her body next
to the naked corpse of a slave to suggest that she had been
caught in adultery. To save herself from the suspicion of
240
having had an affair with a slave, she must therefore submit
to a man whose family, as well as custom, is alien and
tainted with servile blood.
By choosing to die, Lucretia affirms her identity as a
Roman, and her private tragedy becomes a communal one, with
political consequences of which she herself may not be
unaware.12 Until her death, her actions have taken place
within the house, and she seems not to have had a voice. We
do not hear her speak when she welcomes her guests, nor when
she resists Sextus. Her words are reported by Livy in
indirect form. Her first public utterance is also her last.
After her suicide her body is displayed in the market
square, the pitiful sight of which awakens the consciousness
of her compatriots. This is symbolized by the sudden
metamorphosis of Brutus from self-styled dimwit to fiery
orator and leader of the rebellion:
Then he passes the knife to Collatinus, and from
him to Lucretius and Valerius, amazed by the
prodigy, whence came the new spirit in Brutus
. . . then Brutus reprimanded their useless tears
and lamentations and caused them to do what was
worthy of men, and of Romans, to take up arms
against those who had dared to treat them as ene-
mies.
Cultrum deinde Collatino tradit, inde Lucretio ac
241
Vaierio, stupentibus miraculo rei, unde novum in
Bruti pectore ingenium . . . turn Brutus castigator
lacrimarura inertium querellarum auctorque quod
viros, quod Romanos deceret, arraa capiendi
adversus hostilia ausos.
(1.59.4-5)
The repetition quod viros, quod Romanos. in which both
terms are governed by the verb deceret, stresses the
identity of Romans and men, the men, as an echo and answer
to Lucretia's last plea: "But pledge your right hands and
swear that the adulterer will not go unpunished . . . if: you
are men . . . you will see to it, that he gets what he
deserves" (Sed date dexteras fidemque haud impune adultero
fore . . . si vos viri estis . . . , videritis. quid, illi
debeatur). Her wish to be avenged becomes an implicit
political statement. Since the adulterer is the king's son,
exacting the punishment from him is tantamount to open
rebellion, especially since his father is Tarquinius
Superbus, the first king to treat Rome and its inhabitants
as his own private property.13
Lucretia and Brutus are often represented as the
liberators of Rome and the models of appropriate behavior
for women and men. Lucretia expressly states her purpose
not to be an excuse for immoral behavior in other women.
Her chastity is a cultural construct, something she has been
trained in. As a woman, she cannot act outside the domestic
242
sphere, except as an example or pretext. Therefore, she can
only act against herself by committing suicide. Then she
can have a political impact: figuratively, her body is taken
to the market square, her castitas to be again spectata,
gazed upon and judged by men.
Brutus' exemplarity derives from the repression of his
most personal feelings. He rejects the tearful display of
pain and the "feminine" lamentations of Lucretia's other
male relatives and incites them to act. As Brutus himself
had discovered after Tarquinius' murder of his own brother
and father, the repression of one's own feelings was an
instrument of survival and a means of overthrowing servitude
and unraanliness. Brutus will demonstrate the truth of this
when faced with the betrayal of the new republic by his
sons. By commanding their execution he will become Pater
Patriae. Both Brutus and Lucretia thus glorify behavior
that is not natural, but cultural, responding to the demands
of society.14
3. The Tyrant
Livy's portrayal of Tarquinius as the very first
despot of Rome recalls the portrayal by later historians of
some emperors. In creating his Tarquinius, Livy was
influenced by the stock character of the tyrant, familiar to
the Roman audience through representations of Greek
tragedies, Greek and Hellenistic historiography, political
invective and rhetorical declamation. Hellenistic
243
historiographers had in turn been influenced not only by
stories of early Greek tyrants, but also by Herodotus and
Thucydides' accounts of Oriental potentates, particularly of
Persian monarchs.15
Tarquinius Superbus is the black sheep in the history
of Rome's origins. Judging from the extant fragments of
early historians, such as Fabius Pictor, Calpurnius Piso,
Cassius Heraina, and of poets such as Ennius and Naevius, the
kings were generally regarded positively as the founders of
religious traditions and of law.16 Tarquinius Superbus,
however, was the first ruler to break the traditional
collaboration between king and Senate, governing instead by
his sole authority and by the whims of his household:
He in fact was the first of the kings to break
with the established tradition of consulting the
senate about all matters, and administered the
state through private consultations within the
family; all by himself, without the authorization
of the people and the senate, he made and unmade
war, peace, pacts, alliances with whom he wanted.
Hie enim regum primus traditum a prioribus morem
de omnibus senatum consulendi solvit, domesticis
consiliis rem publicam administravit; bellum,
pacem, foedera, societates per se ipse, cum quibus
voluit, iniussu populi ac senatus, fecit
244
diremitque.
(1.49.7-8).
He actively persecutes the senators, fearing their opposi-
tion, and disposes of their most threatening representatives
in a totally arbitrary and despotic manner, conducting
trials for capital offences by himself and without
advisors.17 He reigns through terror not only in Rome, but
also among the allies, as the fate of his opponent Turnus
Herdonius proves, using mostly trickery and deceit in an
altogether un-Roman fashion, minime arte Romana, to achieve
his goals and silence the opposition. His penchant for
deceit and intrigue is all the more disappointing because he
demonstrates, on several occasions, that he is indeed
capable of manly conduct as an expert general and soldier.
Tarquinius' autocratic ways are also evidenced by his
ambitious building program. The temple of Jupiter, which he
has projected, will be an outstanding piece of work, worthy
of the king of gods and men and displaying Roman might. Yet
despite his avowed intentions, it is questionable whether
the might of the Romans will be glorified by the temple,
since he forces the free citizens to work at tasks unworthy
of free men and soldiers, cleaning ditches and sewers in the
city, and lending their work as artisans: "The Roman men,
conquerors of all the surrounding peoples, were turned from
warriors into artisans and stone-cutters" (Romanos homines.
victores omnium circa populorum. opifices ac lapicidas pro
245
bellatoribus factos).ia This is the exact antithesis of
Anchises' prophecy in Aenejd, 6, where the Romans were repre-
sented as the future conquerors of the world; here instead
they are forced to debase themselves performing the tasks
which their subjects are supposed to supply in exchange for
protection.
Despite this offence to the pride and dignity of Rome's
citizens, the rebellion was triggered by the violation of a
matron's honor. The social and political value of
Lucretia's self-immolation in restoring Rome's lost identity
was recognized by Seneca, who represents her as the mother,
cultural rather than natural, of liberation: "In the city
where Lucretia and Brutus tore the yoke of a king from the
necks of the Romans?to Brutus we owe liberty, to Lucretia
we owe Brutus" (In qua regem Romanis capitibus Lucretia et
Brutus deiecerunt: Bruto libertatem debemus. Lucretiae
Brutumi."
As a foil to Lucretia's Roman virtues, Livy devotes
considerable space to the women of the Etruscan dynasty,
Tanaquil the founder and Tullia, partially responsible for
its demise.
4. Tanaquil and Livia
Tanaquil is the first royal consort in the history of
Rome to elicit a certain amount of attention in her own
right. Until her appearance the wives of the previous kings
of Rome do not figure prominently in the accounts about the
246
origins. When they are mentioned, they generally do not
capture the amount of attention that Livy grants Tanaquil.
Even the mythical Egeria, Numa's alleged wife and advisor,
cannot be taken as a significant deviation from this rule.
Her semi-divine nature sets her aside from her mortal
counterparts, so that what is allowed to a goddess is not
always to be promoted in mortal women.
Tanaquil's influence over her husband's most important
decisions cannot be easily dismissed or interpreted as the
advice of a goddess. Despite her expertise in interpreting
celestial signs, she is motivated by earthly ambition and
uses her intelligence and skills to further her own ends.
She is the prime mover and co-founder of the Etruscan ruling
house?a ruling house marking a new era in Roman political
life. Owing to her active participation in politics, her
character assumes a certain importance in literary
tradition, especially in historiography; there are many
analogies between her and Livia.20
As Tanaquil is Rome's first queen in her own right, so
Livia is the first Augusta, and the two women share many
similar features in their literary representation. They are
ladies of noble lineage, ambition, pride, considerable
political savvy and sangfroid. Livy treats Tanaquil with
respect and portrays her favorably. In a brief article
entitled "Livia and Tanaquil," M. P. Charlesworth discusses
the analogies between Livy's account of the way in which
247
Servius Tullius was brought to power and Tacitus' narrative
of the death of Augustus. Against the suggestion that
Livy's Tanaquil may have inspired Tacitus' Livia,
Charlesworth points out that, given the generally favorable
characterization of Tanaquil, it is rather improbable that
Tacitus would have used her as a prototype of Livia. He
rather believes that the Livia of the Annales was not
modelled on Tanaquil but on the imperious and meddlesome
younger Agrippina, whose image was sufficiently tarnished to
shed a negative light on that of her great-grandmother by
association. The analogies that link Livia, Tanaquil and
Agrippina will be discussed later; for the moment, it is
enough to suggest that perhaps the adaptation of Tanaquil's
character to Livia's is not as implausible as Charlesworth
believes. While strong parallels undeniably exist between
Livia and Agrippina's literary representations, they also
exist between the pairs Livia/Agrippina and Tanaquil/Tullia
with regard to the function performed by each of these pairs
within the cycle of their respective dynasties.21
In Livy's story, Tanaquil is a lady of distinguished
background and high ambition, married to the wealthy but
less distinguished Lucumo of Tarquinii, the son of a Greek
political refugee and an Etruscan woman. His origin proves
to be a hindrance to his political ambitions as well as to
those of Tanaquil. No longer able to stomach the disdain of
her countrymen for Lucumo's qualities, she eventually
248
persuades him to search for fame elsewhere. Rome seems to
her the most suitable place, the "land of opportunity" for
energetic and ambitious men, regardless of their ethnic
origins. (A number of Rome's kings had been foreign: Tatius
a Sabine, Numa from Cures, Ancus partly Sabine.) The wisdom
of Tanaquil's choice becomes manifest when, in the vicinity
of Rome, an eagle snatches Lucumo's hat from his head, soars
high and then replaces it. To Tanaquil, versed in the art
of augury, this is an unmistakable sign of future royalty;
eventually it comes to pass when Lucumo, entrusted with the
guardianship of the royal princes, eliminates them through a
bloodless stratagem and usurps the rule.
Having thus realized her ambitions, Tanaquil does not
fade into obscurity, content with her dignity as queen. She
reclaims the spotlight at a critical point by advising her
husband on the choice of his successor. Once again she uses
her interpreting skills to identify the candidate?a
sleeping slave-boy whose head was engulfed in a supernatural
flame that did not burn him. Despite his class, the boy,
adopted by the king and reared as a prince of the blood,
demonstrates the nobility of his character and confirms once
more Tanaquil's acumen. He is the future Servius Tullius,
whose name bore traces of his servile origin. This fact
prompted the class-conscious Romans, at one time or another,
to speculate as to his "true" origin, eventually reaching
the reassuring conclusion that a king of the Romans could
249
never have been a slave born in bondage, but rather must be
the son of a captive aristocrat befriended by the queen.
With Roman pride thus satisfied, both the foreign Tarquinius
and the slave-born Servius proved to be capable and
respected monarchs. Tarquinius' only negative mark,
according to Livy, was his preference for intrigue, which
would resurface with evil consequences in his descendant
Tarquinius Superbus?"Thus a man for all other things
exceptional retained even in his rule that spirit of
intrigue that he had demonstrated while competing for the
throne" (Erao vjrum cetera earegium secuta quam in petendo
habuerat etiam regnantem ambitio est).M
This character trait of the king, along with his
willingness to listen to and act upon his wife's advice,
distinguishes him from his predecessors. His claim that he
is not the first alien to seek the throne in Rome does not
erase the fact that he is certainly the first non-Italian, a
point which assumes great importance in the eyes of the
exiled princes:
Then the two sons of Ancus, even though before
they had considered it the greatest indignity to
have been expelled from their father's kingdom by
the fraud of their guardian, and that Rome should
be ruled by a foreigner, not just of a neighboring
race, but not even Italian: but then the indignity
had been increased by the fact that, even after
250
Tarquinius' death, the kingdom would not return to
them, but would plunge from there into the hands
of slaves so that, almost one hundred years later,
the same city in which Romulus, begotten by a god
and himself a god, had ruled during his lifetime,
would be possessed by a slave born of a slave. It
would be not only a general disgrace to the Roman
name, but to their house in particular if, with
the male offspring of Ancus still alive and well,
the sovereignty of Rome were open not only to
foreigners, but also to slaves.
Turn Anci filii duo, etsi antea pro indignissimo
habuerant se patrio regno tutoris fraud pulsos,
regnare Romae advenam non modo vicinae, sed ne
Italicae quidem stirpis, turn impensius iis
indignitas crescere, si ne ab Tarquinio quidem ad
se rediret regnum, sed praeceps inde porro ad
servitia caderet, ut in eadem civitate post
centesimum fere annum quod Romulus, deo prognato
deus ipse, tenuerit regnum donee in terris fuerit,
id servus serva natus possideat. Cum commune
Romani nominis turn praecipue id domus suae dedecus
fore, si Anci regis virili stirpe salva non modo
advenis, sed servis etiam regnum Romae pateret.
(1.40.2-4)
251
As this passage spells out, the peculiar character of the
ruling house is augmented by the choice of the king's
successor, not a Roman aristocrat or a legitimate heir, but
a slave. Such a decision is based on the suggestion of a
woman rather than by deliberation of the Senate and the
people. A complete subversion of Rome's power structure has
taken place, with dire consequences for the future. The
subterfuge used by Tarquinius to gain power; Tanaquil's lies
to the people to secure Servius' accession to the throne;
the queen and the slave-prince pretending to act in the name
of the dead king while actually consolidating their own
power?all these elements herald both the excesses of
Tarquinius Superbus' reign and the intrigues of the imperial
dynasties, especially the Julio-Claudians.
Charlesworth points out the common pattern followed by
the events surrounding the deaths of Tarquinius the Elder,
Augustus, Claudius and Trajan, and the advent of their
heirs. The old king's death is kept secret by the queen by
means of a stratagem until her son, natural or adopted, has
securely gained power. Unfortunately, Charlesworth
dismisses this rather interesting pattern as "the commonest
stock-in-trade of all court history".23 This may be true,
but closer attention should perhaps be paid to the features
that the characters of one plot share with their counter-
parts in other such schemes, as well as to the ways in which
they may diverge from one another, to bring to light the
252
role of typology in Roman historiography.
The analogies between Tanaquil and Livia are not
restricted to the part played in securing the throne for
their respective sons, but are numerous and varied. They
can be traced in the main historiographical sources
(Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio) and are, in my opinion, derived
both from the Livian narrative and from a body of anecdotes
circulating in Rome, undoubtedly with the blessings of the
First Family- While the majority of these anecdotes refer
to omens and miracles portending the future greatness of
Octavian, a few concern Livia and they are ideologically
significant. Dio Cassius, for instance, reports at length
Livia's speech to Augustus, urging him to adopt a policy of
clemency and tolerance toward conspirators against his rule
in order to establish his power firmly on the goodwill of
the people. The story is also related by Seneca, though
much more concisely; on his part, Suetonius mentions
Augustus' habit of consulting Livia in the form of written
notes.24 These stories emphasize Livia's political skill
and the value that Augustus assigned to her judgment, and
create a link with the figure of Tanaquil, chief advisor to
her husband.
Livia and Tanaquil are not only chief advisors to their
husbands, but they also share a similar literary portrait as
ancestresses and co-founders of dynasties which, in their
respective cycles of development and decadence, present many
253
common features. In this case too, the influence exerted by
the Livian narrative can be detected mainly in Tacitus'
account of the Julio-Claudians' rule and, to a minor extent,
in Dio and Suetonius. An examination of the anecdotes
concerning Livia's early life may help to clarify this
point.
Events similar to Tanaquil's prediction of Tarquinius'
success based on the incident with the eagle can be found
among the anecdotes on Livia related by Dio Cassius and
Suetonius. In one instance, a white bird carrying a twig of
laurel was seized by an eagle and dropped into Livia's lap.
According to Dio, Livia interpreted the event as a favorable
omen, and she nursed the bird back to health and planted the
twig. Both survived and prospered, the twig growing into a
laurel bush from which the branches were taken to adorn the
Julio-Claudians in their triumphs; the offspring of the bird
multiplied and survived well into the reign of Nero. Both
the plant and the animal died shortly before the disastrous
end of Nero's regime, forecasting the impending death of the
last of the dynasty. With very slight variation, the same
story is narrated by Suetonius in his life of Galba.25
The similarities between Livy's story of Tanaquil and
Dio and Suetonius' anecdote of Livia concern the Etruscan
art of augury in relation to the founding of a royal house
or city. A related example is the legend of Rome's founding
by Romulus and Remus. The main differences between Livy and
254
Dio lay in the tone of the author and in the representation
of the event. Livy represents Tanaquil as an intermediary
between human and divine worlds by means of her ability to
interpret divine signs: she is perita . . . caelestium
prodiqiorum mulier and performs an almost sacral function,
suggested also by the fact that she and Tarquinius travel by
carpentum. a carriage commonly associated with the Vestals.
It is true that the carpentum was not exclusively reserved
for religious uses (the pilentum, a larger and more
luxurious version, was).26 Nevertheless, the use of a
relatively small carriage mostly employed in the city seems
odd, considering that, two lines earlier, Livy reports that
the pair is travelling with all their possessions (a larger
carriage would have been in order, since Tarquinius is
wealthy). The eagle is deliberately sent by the gods
fministerio divinitus missa) to indicate their favor to
Tarquinius in his highest endeavor by placing the cap back
on his head. The idea that he will reach the top is implied
by the emphasis on the head, where the cap is returned, and
by the repeated use of words like sublimis. excelsa, alta.
The recipient of divine favor is Tarquinius, the future
king; Tanaquil is simply the medium through which the will
of the gods is conveyed and made known. In such context,
she performs an acceptable role within Roman society,
compatible with those traditionally assigned by the Romans
to their women in the transmission of family name and
255
tradition and, at times, in the mediation of conflicts. It
is a supporting role, neither entirely passive nor active,
socially acceptable because it may confer a certain
authority on the woman without infringing on traditional
male prerogatives.
Dio's Livia is much more ambivalent. The incident of
the bird with the laurel is introduced as one of a series of
miraculous but ominous occurrences that disturbed the
population of Rome and of the empire. Dio says that the
event was viewed with pleasure by Livia, with dread by the
rest.27 Unlike Livy's Tanaquil, Livia is not perita . . .
caelestium prodiqiorum. although she acts both as
interpreter and recipient of the signs. Since her
interpretation is entirely subjective, not rooted in
mystical art but in her own person, the event is viewed by
the author as ominous. Although her behavior toward the
injured bird is nurturing and benevolent, and though the
success she encounters in restoring health and prosperity to
bird and plant recall the main themes of her iconography,
she is alone in her joy at the miracle, while the rest are
filled with dread. The eagle, messenger of the gods and
symbol of royalty, has, by dropping the bird in Livia's lap,
singled her out as the chosen one, much as in Livy the eagle
had singled out Tarquinius by dropping the cap back on his
head. Livia's husband, the ruler of the Roman world, is
destined to be ruled by her (in modern terms he was "in her
256
pocket," in Greek he was "in the folds of her robe"), the
source of her power residing in her lap. Significantly, the
specific word used, epsilontonosgammakappaomicron?piomegatonossigmaepsilonsigmathetaalphaiota (48.52.3), has as its root
kappaomicrontonoslambdatautauomicronsigma1 ("womb, vagina"), a clear allusion to her influence
as a wife and as mother of the successor. Symbolically, the
idea of Livia as ruler is also reinforced by the fact that
it is from her laurel bush that the branches come to adorn
her male relatives' triumphs, thus she also is a
triumphatrix by proxy.
The last, but not least important, difference between
Livy and Dio's narratives is that Livia's role in the
survival of the dynasty is clearly indicated as one of the
significant factors. The fortune of the family seems tied
to the life of the bird and plant under her protection,
symbols of her enduring presence. On the historical level,
this is confirmed by the emphasis placed by Claudius on his
kinship with the deified Livia, while outsiders like Galba
relied on almost filial forms of reverence toward her to
legitimate their claims to power.
The second anecdote showing Livia as interpreter of
signs is related by Suetonius in his life of Tiberius. The
expectant Livia, wishing to foretell the gender of her
child, "hatched" a hen's egg in her hands, eventually
producing a fine chick with a fully formed comb, sign of
Tiberius' royal destiny. Here the analogies with the spirit
of Tanaquil's story are more evident, since Livia is the
257
intermediary through which the chick/emperor is brought to
life, the recipient of the sign being her son, not herself.
In the development of their respective dynasties
Tanaquil and Livia play similar roles, with their
descendants Tullia and Agrippina as opposites. Among other
factors, they are destined to become role models for their
female descendants in a rather peculiar way.
5. Tarquinii and Julio-Claudians
According to Livy, it was the envy that Tullia felt
for her grandmother's accomplishments that spurred her on to
her crimes. Likewise, Agrippina's resentment and envy of
Livia's position and honors caused her to demand not only
all the honors and privileges granted her great-grandmother,
but to desire for herself even more public authority than
Livia ever exercised, thus preparing her own demise.
Tullia's consuming desire to imitate and surpass the
political successes of her grandmother stands out as a
perhaps unwitting parody of traditional Roman pride and
emulation of the ancestors:
Nor could she give herself peace, when she thought
that Tanaquil, a foreign woman, had conceived such
machinations as to be able to bestow the rule
twice in succession, to her husband and to her
son-in-law while she, of royal descent, would
count for nothing in making or unmaking a king.
258
Nec conquiescere ipsa potest, si, cum Tanaquil
peregrina mulier tantum moliri potuisset animo ut
duo continua regna viro ac deinceps genero
dedisset, ipsa regio semine orta nullum momentum
in dando adimendoque regno faceret.
(1.47.6-7)
Superficially animated by Roman patriotism, this
passage is a parody of Roman family pride, as the opposition
peregrina mulier versus regio semine orta suggests; above
all, it emanates subversive irony, since it is about the
sort of political ambition which was normally encouraged in
males rather than in females. What Tullia strives so hard
to imitate and surpass are not Tanaquil's well-known wifely
virtues, but her political prowess in tampering with the
established power structure. Even more ironically, Tullia,
in defining herself as regio semine orta, glosses over her
own father's servile origin, a point on which her husband
Tarquinius frequently (and indelicately) returns in his
rebellious speech: "a slave born of a slave woman after his
father's shameful death" (servum servague natum post mortem
indignam parentis sui) .2*
Anomalous behavior is the main characteristic of the
Etruscan ruling house, not only as far as the behavior of
some female members is concerned, but as a general rule. An
examination of the modus operandi of its principal members,
male and female, demonstrates how their behavior is
259
consistently characterized by flouting and reversing of the
most intimate and sacred social bounds. By stressing the
indifference of Tarquinius Superbus, Tullia, and Sextus to
the ties of affection among close relatives (brother,
sister, father, cousin), Livy graphically presents the
Etruscan ruling house as an aberration, culturally and
morally alien to their Roman subjects, thus rationalizing
the deeply rooted antipathy of the latter toward the
monarchy. The patriotic and xenophobic emphasis of the
whole saga reflects not only the social and cultural climate
fostered by Augustus' pre-Actium and, later on, reformistic
propaganda, but also Livy's own republican and moralistic
inclinations, fruit of his old-fashioned Patavian
upbringing.
The decadence and demise of the Etruscan monarchy are
portrayed in sombre colors, with a deep fatalism that mocks
king Servius' futile attempt to preempt threats to his rule
from within the family by marrying off his two daughters to
the two sons of Tarquinius?a useless stratagem. The
familiar theme of mismatched partners is used by Livy to
highlight the inevitability of self-destructive ambition
inherent in monarchy. Tullia and Tarquinius, drawn to each
other by the same arrogance and thirst for power, soon
eliminate their meek spouses, who were but obstacles to
their ambitions. Goaded by Tullia's constant urging and by
his own unrestrained ambition, Tarquinius is easily
260
persuaded to usurp the throne and do away with the aged
Servius, in a tragic and impious parody of Tanaquil's role
(cf. excelsa et alta sperare . . . virum iubet)? What
Tanaquil had done on a symbolic level, abandoning the
fatherland that stifled her own aspirations, Tullia realized
on the practical level, contributing to the murder of her
own father, guilty of obstructing her husband's, and her
own, path to power. Tanaquil's attitude is defined by Livy
as obiitague ingenitae erga patriam caritatis. dununodo virum
honoratum videret. The words ingenita and caritas indicate
the affection a child naturally ought to feel for the
parents, while the word patria, from the same root as paterr
makes the fatherland an extension of the father, primary
recipient of affection.2*
Tullia can then be considered the negative side of
Tanaquil, partially responsible for the ruin of the dynasty
through her deeds as much as her grandmother had been its
co-founder through her counsels. Tarquinius is also not
spared by Livy's wit: like Tullia, Tarquinius is oblivious
to the intense irony of his own predicament. He lambasts
Servius for his low birth and indebtedness to a woman for
his royal title fmuliebri dono instead of per suffragium
populi . . . , auctoribus patribus), forgetting that he is
treading the same path. In fact it is Tullia who, after the
mutiny, first hails him king in public, a gesture that
reveals her brazen disregard for the rules of decorum and
261
propriety so dear to the Romans: "It is agreed . . . that
she was driven to the forum in a covered wagon, and not at
all ashamed of the crowd of men, called her husband forth
from the senate-house and was the first to salute him king"
(Carpento certe . . . in forum invecta. nee reverita coetum
virum e curia regemque prima appellavit).30 The political
significance of her gesture is augmented by its openness;
she does in public what Tanaquil had done in secret,
invading male territory by entering the forum, off-limits to
well-born women, anticipating the Senate and the people's
decision by calling him king. The crescendo of Tullia's
subversive acts against family and state reaches its peak
when she drives her carriage over the dead body of her
father, in open desecration of cultural and familial ties.
Her action is a political crime, since her patricide is also
regicide.
The mockery of Roman tradition and values continues
when Tarquinius refuses proper burial rites to his father-
in-law, claiming that even Romulus had had no burial.31 A
rule begun under such auspices cannot but end in disaster;
it is therefore hardly surprising that Sextus, offspring of
such parents, violated the bonds of family and the sacred
rules of hospitality by raping Lucretia, his cousin's wife,
who had received him as a guest.
Tullia and Tarquinius represent an inversion of the
positive qualities of the pair Tanaquil-Tarquinius: what
262
their ancestors?wise and beneficent rulers, even if not
scrupulously honest?had obtained without bloodshed, using
fraud (against Ancus' sons), deception (in Servius'
succession to power) and mystical art (Tanaquil's
interpretation of omens), Tullia and Tarquinius obtain
through heinous crimes (against family and state), deceit
(plotting to overthrow Servius) and impiety (irreverence to
the father's body, refusal of proper burial rites). At the
same time, the transformation indicated above suggests a
change of the sphere in which these actions take place:
Tanaquil and Tarquinius' predilection for secrecy and
subterfuge degenerates into Tullia and Tarquinius' shameless
openness. The irresistible evolution of monarchy from
enlightened despotism into naked tyranny is complete.
Shifting attention from Livy's semi-historical Etruscan
dynasty to narratives concerning the historical Julio-
Claudians, it is possible to notice that the transformations
observed in the story of Tanaquil and Tullia can be applied
to that of Livia and Agrippina. Within the events of their
dynasty they played roles analogous to those of the Etruscan
princesses, and they too appear as opposite sides of the
same coin. This is only partially accidental: it is my
opinion that Tacitus' representation of Livia and Agrippina
was consciously modelled on those of Tanaquil and Tullia.
While it is chronologically untenable to suppose the
opposite, i.e., that Livia and Agrippina were the "raw
263
material," since the first five books of Livy's work were
composed between 29 and 24 B.C., Tacitus' borrowings from
Livy's first book, verbal as well as thematic, are well
attested. The Tacitean reelaboration of the episode of
Tarquinius' death to fit the circumstances of Claudius' and
Augustus' deaths has been mentioned before. More recently,
P. Sinclair has demonstrated the conscious use by Tacitus of
an expression borrowed from the Lucretia episode and
applied, by way of contrast, to the adulterous Livilla.
These Livian "echos" demonstrate Tacitus' special interest
in the narrative of the rise and fall of the Tarquinian
dynasty and in the ideologically "charged" character of
Lucretia.32 Combining a few significant events in the
lives of Livia and Agrippina culled from our main
historiographical sources (Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio), one is
struck by some noticeable coincidences. For example, for
both Livia and Agrippina the marriage to the ruler of Rome
was a dramatic turning point in their political career.
Both marriages, for different reasons, were regarded as
scandalous by their contemporaries and caused sensation even
in the jaded atmosphere of Rome.
Livia and Augustus were married after hasty divorces
from their former consorts; although politically motivated
divorces were no novelty in Rome, what made this case so
special was the bride's advanced pregnancy with the child of
her first husband. Obligingly, Livia's ex-husband consented
264
to act in lieu of her father and give her away, a fact that
gave immense scope to gossip and amusement to lampoonists.
There is an intimation of incest in the figure of the
husband-father, an intimation that became reality when
Agrippina actually married her uncle Claudius. By any
standard, Agrippina and Claudius' marriage was regarded as
incestuous and against custom, so that the Senate had to
break the rules and make such arrangements lawful for anyone
who wished to follow suit. Very few did. The union of
Livia and Augustus, although unorthodox, still fell within
the prescriptions of the law, as the Pontifices attested
(Dio's ironic remarks were unwarranted).33
Both Livia and Agrippina had set ambitious goals for
the sons born of their former unions and worked tirelessly
to assist their children, in both instances to the detriment
of the state, at least according to some historiographers
(Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio). Nevertheless, even anti-
monarchic historians had to recognize Tiberius' ability as
an administrator and a leader, while on the other hand
Nero's disgraceful antics and general incompetence inspired
ridicule and hatred.
After the deaths of their husbands, both women demanded
increasing influence in shaping their sons' policies,
claiming that they had been vital in securing their sons'
titles, thus alienating them to the point that Livia ended
up abandoned, Agrippina murdered at her son's command.
265
It is generally agreed, even among her detractors, that
Livia's conduct had been, in the main, discreet and
unobtrusive, particularly during Augustus* life. She
preferred to exercise her influence over political matters
in private, actively supporting her husband's social agenda
by personal example. Whether her partnership with Augustus
was viewed as a successfully concerted effort on the part of
two hypocrites to deprive Rome of liberty, or as the
admirable realization of a mythical patriarchal past, she
was undeniably an asset to her husband. Agrippina, by
contrast, is unanimously portrayed as a liability to her
husband Claudius and her son alike. Her claims to the spot-
light, already rather aggressive under Claudius, became even
more so under Nero. Unlike Livia, who worked in accord with
her husband and could make his patriarchal fantasy credible
to the majority, Agrippina used Claudius for her own
purposes in accord with the imperial freedmen. Compared to
Livia's, her behavior was extreme and openly threatening:
she joined the emperor at transactions of public business
and at audiences with foreign ambassadors (the most
remarkable sight of the time), at first sitting on a
separate tribunal, later on demanding public aknowledgment
of her position at the head of the empire. Seneca and
Burrus were occupied full-time trying to prevent foreign
embassies from witnessing in person the fatal weakness of
the empire, gradually undermining her authority to the
266
benefit of state businness?if Dio is to be believed.34
The noticeable analogies between significant events in
the careers of Livia and Agrippina indicate that the
functions fulfilled by the two women in Roman historiography
are those associated with the creation and demise of the
dynasty and seem to correspond to the functions that
Tanaquil and Tullia perform in the Livian narrative of the
Etruscan monarchy. While Livia and Tanaquil represent the
benevolent side of a monarchy that is capable of harnessing
feminine ambition to the advantage of the state, Agrippina
and Tullia, in their desire to emulate and surpass their
forerunners, represent the despotic and unrestrained side of
the same coin. Their function is to lay out in the open the
arbitrariness and irrationality of a system no longer able
to control and exploit feminine ambition for the common
good. Hence the virtuous matron and the female tyrant are
complementary aspects of the same reality.
267
Notes to Chapter Five
1. R. Sailer, "Anecdotes as Historical Evidence for the
Principate," Greece and Rome 28 (1981) 69hyphenminus83, esp. pp. 71hyphenminus
72, 78hyphenminus79. On LiviahyphenminusUlixes, see Suet. Gaius 23.2; on the
two Agrippinas, Tac. Ann. 4.52, 4.54.1, 5.3.10, 12.7.10,
13.2.8; Dio 61.3.3hyphenminus4; on the two Julias and Messalina, Tac.
Ann. 1.53.1, Juvenal 6.115hyphenminus132; on the two Octavias, Plut.
Ant. 35, 54.2, 57.2, Sen. Octavia.
2. On the exclusion of Roman women from official politics,
see J. Hallett, Fathers and Daugthers in Roman Society
(Princeton 1984), p. 8; also Lactantius, Epit. 33 (38), 5.
On silence concerning honest women, see Thuc. The Peloponhyphenminus
nesian War, 2.45.2. On the early exposure of Roman women to
politics, see B. Fortsch, Die politische Rolle der Frau in
der romischen Republik (Stuttgart 1935), pp. 32, 45hyphenminus46. On
the ideological importance of woolworking and on the
relationship between private space and feminine activity,
cf. T. Hillard, "On the Stage, Behind the Curtain: Images of
Politically Active Women in the Late Roman Republic" in
Stereotypes of Women in Power, ed. B. Garlick, S. Dixon and
P. Allen (New York 1992) pp. 40hyphenminus41.
3. Tau. E. V. Pearce, "The Role of the Wife as Custos in
Ancient Rome," Eranos 72 (1974), pp. 25hyphenminus27, 33. On stock
epithets and qualities praised in inscriptions, see R.
Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana 1942),
p. 277. On the wife's chastity, see D. Gilmore, "The Shame
of Dishonor," pp. 4hyphenminus7, and C. Delaney, "Seeds of Honor,
Fields of Shame," D. Gilmore, ed., Honor and Shame and the
Unity of the Mediterranean (American Anthropological Associhyphenminus
ation, Washington 1987), pp. 39hyphenminus43. On spinning, see S.
Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores. Wives and Slaves (New York
1975), p. 199; on Livia's spinning, Suet. Aug. 73. For
Tanaquil's association with marriage rituals, see Pliny, iL_
H? 8.194, quoted in S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford
1991), p. 27 n. 109, as well as associations of lanificium
with chastity, pp. 206, 220, 243, 375.
4. On the influence of the mother on the children's educahyphenminus
tion, see Tac. Dial. De Orat. 28.
5. Tac. Dial. De Orat. 28.
6. On chastity, see J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Roman Women (New
York 1962), p. 240; Livy, 10.23.8, on the equivalent value
of chastity for women and courage for men. See also
Pomeroy, above n. 3, pp. 211hyphenminus212. Women as the repositories
of the honor of a group symbolize, in a larger context, the
state. This may seem strange in societies like Greece and
268
Rome's, where women were actively barred from public office.
Yet the ideal which the women's purity embodied was an aim
which the family group and the community strove to satisfy,
although it was so high that it was generally unattainable.
Hence the severity towards those women who were perceived as
"erring." S. Ortner, quoted in Stereotypes of Women in
Powerf ed. B. Garlick, S. Dixon, P. Allen (Westport 1992),
p. 67.
7. Suet. Aug. 40.3; Dio 56.33. Suet. Divus Augustus tran.
E. Shuckburgh, (New York 1979), p. 87 n.40. Also Fortsch
(above, n. 2), pp. 48-50, and J. A. Crook, Law and Life in
Rome (Ithaca 1967), p. 99.
8. S. H. Jed, Chaste Thinking (Bloomington 1989), pp. 2-3.
Also I. Donaldson, The Rapes of Lucretia (Oxford 1982), p.
8. Herodotus, 1.1-3; Thuc. 6.54; Arist. Politics 1311a, 1314
b. Livy, 3.44-48.
9. She is probably in the atrium.
n. 2), pp. 40-41.
Cf. T. Hillard (above,
10. See Ovid's description of affairs initiated at banquets
in Amores 1.4. Voyeurism and modesty: in this respect,
there is a certain parallel between this voyeurism and that
narrated by Herodotus in 1.8-11, where Gyges is forced by
King Candaules to observe the queen naked in order to judge
her beauty. This insult to her modesty will result in the
king's death. Concerning the function of the eye of the
community in determining personal and social worth, the
following words of D. Gilmore "Honor and Shame: Male Status
in Contemporary Andalusia," in Honor and Shame (above, n.
3), p. 101?though they refer to shame?seem relevant to
Lucretia's observable behavior: "shame is above all visual
and public. Unlike guilt, shame requires an audience: the
watchful community. In the psychic mechanism of shaming, it
is the 'eye' of the community and the related sense of
paranoiac observation that are assimilated to worldview and
to personality."
11. Livy, 1.58.10-11.
12. In the context of suicide as resistance to domination,
see M. Giovannini, "Female Chastity Codes," in Gilmore, ed.,
Honor and Shame (above, n. 3), p. 66. The internalization
by Lucretia of patriarchal notions of honor as resistance to
political authority seems to me similar to the increase of
veiling and seclusion of women in some Islamic societies to
express opposition to colonialism and westernization (cf.
Giovannini, p. 70).
269
13. On the metaphorical substitution of Tarquinius Superbus
for Sextus, see S. Philippides, "Narrative Strategies and
Ideology in Livy's Rape of Lucretia," Helios 1984, pp. 114hyphenminus
119.
14. S. Jed (above, n. 8), p. 15; I. Donaldson (above, n. 8)
p. 123.
15. R. Dunkle, "The Rhetorical Tyrant in Roman
Historiography: Sallust, Livy and Tacitus," CW 65 (1971),
pp. 12hyphenminus20; S. Borzsak, "Persertum und griechischhyphenminusromische
Antike: Zur Ausgestaltung des klassischen Tyrannenbildes,"
Gymnasium 94 (1987), pp. 289hyphenminus291, 293hyphenminus294; R. Dunkle, "The
Greek Tyrant and Roman Political Invective of the Late
Republic," Tau?Rho? 96 (1967), pp. 151hyphenminus171.
16?, C. J. Classen, "Die Konigszeit im Spiegel der Literatur
der Roraischen Republik," Historia 14 (1965) 388hyphenminus389; 394.
17. Livy, 1.49.4.
18. Livy, 1.59.10.
19. Ad Marciamf 16: the context of this reference also
concerns the repression of personal feelings.
20. M. P. Charlesworth, "Livia and Tanaquil," Classical
Review 41 (1927), pp. 55hyphenminus57.
21. Charlesworth (above, n. 20), p. 56. See also S. E.
Smethurst, "Women in Livy's History," Greece and Rome 19
(June 1950), pp. 81hyphenminus82, for the apparent contradiction:
"Livy's attitude to her is nonhyphenminuscommittal. ... He cannot
disapprove, but he does withhold his approval" versus "With
the exception ... of Tanaquil and Fecenia vivid
characterization of 'good' women is lacking."
22. Livy, 1.35.6.
23. Charlesworth (above, n. 20), p. 55.
24. Livy was familiar with the court, since he was
Claudius' mentor (Suet. Claudius 41). On Livia and mercy:
Dio, 55.14hyphenminus22.2; Sen. De Clem. 1.9.6. Livia as Augustus'
advisor: Suethyphenminus Aug. 84.2.
25. Dio, 48.52; Suet. Galba 1.
26. Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd ed., "Carriages," p.
207; Kleine Paulv. vol. 5, col. 1345 "Wagen."
27. Dio, 48.52.3.
270
28.
29.
30.
31.
Livy,
Livy,
Livy
Livy,
1
1
1
?
1
.47
.34
48.
.48
.10.
.9, 1.34.5.
5-6.
32. On Tacitus' verbal and thematic borrowings, see, in
addition to Charlesworth (above, n. 19), R. H. Martin,
"Tacitus and the Death of Augustus," CO. (1955) vol. 5, pp.
123-128, and P. Sinclair, "Tacitus' Presentation of Livia
Julia," ME 111 (1990), pp. 238-256.
33. On Livia's second marriage: Dio, 48.44; Suet. Aug.
69.1; Tac. Ann. 1.10.20. On Agrippina and Claudius: Suet.
Claudius 26.
34. Hypocrisy of Livia and Augustus: Tac. Ann. 5.1.
Agrippina and the freedmen: Dio, 59.33. Disease of the
empire: Dio, 59.7, 59.3.4.
Chapter Six
Women and Subversion in Roman Historiography
Along with the celebration of Lucretia as a model of
feminine patriotic virtue and the official exaltation of the
matron's duty to her family and to the state, there was a
powerful suspicion of ambitious women, expressed in
misogynistic literature. Such suspicion was inspired by the
belief that women could imperil or subvert the established
order of things. The threat was more imaginary than real,
since there is no factual record in Roman history of any
politically motivated organization of women. Even the
actions of the most notorious, such as Sempronia, Fulvia,
Servilia, Agrippina, always centered on male relatives and
had as their goal the advantage of their families. The
instances of large numbers of women uniting to protest
unpopular measures are rather isolated in Roman history;
such demonstrations usually met with no opposition from the
majority of the male population and did not reveal any
permanent solidarity among women as a political class.1
Yet the austere customs of yesteryear were often invoked by
moralists as a positive foil against which the lack of
discipline among contemporary women was compared. Writers
such as Livy, Tacitus and Juvenal cast the erosion of family
mores as a metaphor for social upheavals in general. The
theme of the assertive matron who lords it over her husband
is very often connected to that of the woman ruler of men.
271
272
On a few occasions this became dangerously close to reality
with the exploits of Fulvia, Agrippina and of the women of
the Severan dynasty. In foreign politics, the conflict with
Cleopatra was represented as a titanic struggle of the manly
Romans against a castrating female from the East. By and
large, however, these are isolated cases in the vast expanse
of centuries since Rome's foundation.
Moralistic historiography used female immorality to
explain social and political conflicts which threatened the
rule of the Patres. The threat could manifest itself either
as an organized body of matrons or of strong-willed and
daring individuals. In the speech of Cato against the
repeal of the Oppian Law, revised by Livy, the protesting
women are compared to the rebellious plebeians in the time
of the struggle of the orders. In the Bacchanalian scandal,
also narrated by Livy, the offenders of public morality are
mostly women and simillimi feminis maresf men who are no
longer men because they had subjected themselves to corrupt-
ed practices. Again in Livy matrons are responsible for
poisoning a good number of primores civitatis. Sallust,
Cicero and Dio also present well-bred ladies predisposed to
join plots and rebellions aimed at de-stabilizing the state,
either as accomplices (Sempronia) or as leaders (Fulvia).
Other writers give us both individualized portraits of
power-thirsty women and more generalized depictions: for an
example of the former, see Tacitus' Livia and the two
273
Agrippinas; for the latter, the governor's wife in Ann.
3.33. The rhetorical topoi on which these portrayals and
narratives are based were used in political propaganda and
invective and had their origins in social reality. P.
Slater observed that sexual and social inequalities tend to
engender fear of retribution.2 In the Roman world this
fear was expressed in a variety of ways, most notably by
myths of warrior women (the Amazons), homicidal spouses (the
Lemnian women, the Danaids, Clytemnestra) and in the
periodic threat of rebellions led by demagogues or slaves.
A closer examination of the passages in question may help to
clarify their cultural origins.
1. Triumphant Women: Cato and the Repeal of the Oppian Law
At the beginning of book 34 of his history, Livy
relates a curious incident, sandwiched between the wars just
terminated and those about to begin. The author describes
it as "a trifling thing to relate, but one which was
magnified into a violent contention on account of the
passions it excited" fres parva dictu, sed quae studiis in
magnum certamen excesserit). The tribunes of the people had
proposed the repeal of the Oppian law, which restricted the
possession and display of luxury items on the part of women;
the motivation for passing such a decree?the hardships
caused by the war against Hannibal?was no longer valid,
they argued. Public opinion was split among those in favor
274
of the repeal and those against it, so that the matrons came
out in a body to lobby the elected officials in favor of
restoring their former privileges. Livy describes the scene
as follows:
The matrons could not be kept at home by authority
or modesty or orders by their husbands, but they
besieged all the streets of the city and
approaches to the forum, begging the men coming
down to the forum that, in the prosperity of the
state, when the private fortunes of all men were
daily increasing, the matrons should be allowed to
resume their former distinctions.
Matronae nulla nee auctoritate nee verecundia nee
imperio virorum contineri limine poterant, omnes
vias urbis aditusque in foro obsidebant viros
descendentes ad forum orantes ut florente rei
publica, crescente in dies privata omnium fortuna,
matronis quoque pristinum ornatum reddi
paterentur.
(34.1.5-6)
This paragraph contains in nuce the main elements of the
episode: the contrast between matronae and viri; the
rebellion against social and political standards, since the
women ignore the commands of authority and of their own
husbands fnec auctoritate . . . nee imperio virorum), as
275
well as those of socially dictated modesty; the military
metaphors flimine contineri. imperium. obsidebant) oddly
clashing with viros . . . orantes: and finally, the allusion
to the past (pristinum). The images suggested are contra-
dictory, since the women are represented both as mutinous
soldiers and as plying the men with entreaties. As regards
the bone of contention, the desire to wear former emblems of
class distinction, the adjective pristinus implies a range
of positive associations.3 Livy reports further that many
men were sympathetic to the women's pleas, and that the
motion for the repeal of the law had not been introduced by
the women themselves, but by the tribunes of the people.
In spite of these considerations, the speech attributed
to Cato on this occasion is replete with misogynistic,
class-oriented rhetoric. According to A. Astin, the text of
Cato's real speech may not have been preserved, and was
probably not known to Livy. Nevertheless, even if based on
Livy's inference of Cato's themes, the speech is instructive
for the persistently negative characterization of women in
the political arena. In recreating its gist, Livy insti-
tutes a parallel between the women's agitation and the
plebeians' struggle that seems to transcend mere rhetorical
hyperbole.4
In Livy's rendition of Cato's possible interpretation
of the event, the unorthodox but substantially peaceful
gathering of women?not only from the city but from the
276
surrounding areas as well?is likened to a catastrophe of
the state: "Now that our liberty has been conquered at home
by female violence, even here in the forum it is bruised and
trampled upon, and because we have not kept them under
control individually, now we are terrified of them
collectively" fnunc domi victa libertas nostra impotentia
muliebri hie quoque in foro obteritur et calcatur. et quia
singulas non continuimus. universas horrerous). With the
exception of the qualifying muliebrif one may think that
Cato is either speaking about real political adversaries or
external enemies, to whom the rule of divide et impera must
be applied.
The sentiment expressed by the phrase et quia singulas
non continuimus. universas horremus recalls to a certain
extent an analogous thought expressed by Tacitus in the
Germania; speaking about the Germans' propensity to fight
against one another, he hopes that there "may remain and
endure for a long time among those peoples, if not the love
toward us, at least the hatred among themselves, since when
destiny threatens the empire, fortune can grant us nothing
better than discord among the enemies" fManeat, quaeso.
duretque gentibus. si non amor nostri. at certe odium sui.
quando uraentibus imperil fatis nihil jam praestare fortuna
maius potest quam hostium discordiara).s Cato's fictional
speech seems to express an underlying fear of obliteration,
as if, despite both the restrictions imposed on women by law
277
and tradition (auctoritate) and the women's awareness of
their own political impotence (viros . . . orantes ut . . .
matronis quoque pristinum ornatum reddi paterentur^, it were
within their power to turn the tables on men. The mythical
example chosen by the speaker to prod his argument makes
this evident:
Indeed I thought it a fable and a piece of fiction
that, on a certain island, the whole male gender
had been wiped out, root and branch, by a
conspiracy of women; from no other class is there
a greater danger, if you allow them meetings and
gatherings and secret consultations.
Equidem fabulam et fictam rem ducebam esse,
virorum omne genus in aliqua insula coniuratione
muliebri ab stirpe sublatum esse; nullo ab genere
non summum periculum est, si coetum et concilia et
secretas consultationes esse sinas.
(2.2-4)
The implication that women are indeed a political group
is made by associating the matrons with the plebeians, both
on the linguistic level and by insinuating that the tri-
bunes, representatives of the plebs and sponsors of the
bill, have instigated the women's folly:
This feminine folly, whether it is spontaneous or
278
due to your instigation, M. Fundanus and L.
Valerius, but which undoubtedly discredits the
magistrates, I don't know whether it is more
disgraceful to you, tribunes, or to the consuls:
to you, if you have brought these women in to
support tribunician seditions; to us, if we must
accept laws forced upon us by a secession of women
now, as once before by a secession of plebeians.
Haec consternatio muliebris, sive sua sponte sive
auctoribus vobis, M. Fundani et L. Valeri, facta
est, haud dubie ad culpam magistratuum pertinens,
nescio vobis, tribuni, an consulibus raagis sit
deformis; vobis, si feminas ad concitandas tribun-
icias seditiones iam adduxistis; nobis, si ut
plebis quondam, sic nunc mulierum secessione leges
accipiendae sunt.
(34.2.6-8)
The terminology used is distinctly political: seditio
is the result of rivalry between two organized political
groups (patricians and plebeians), for the purpose of
revolting against the established order. It is commonly
used by the optimates with reference to popular agitations
provoked by the plebeians. Secessio also recalls the famous
plebeian mass abandonment of Rome, and is regarded as a
consequence of seditio. Coniuratio on the other hand
279
indicates a group of people bound by an oath for
revolutionary purposes: the term is usually employed in a
negative sense, to define a movement aiming at personal
advantage instead of the common good.6 Regardless of their
different social standing, the matrons are portrayed as
being allied with the representatives of the lower classes,
performing a function similar to that of the plebeians in an
attempt to destroy Rome's cherished patriarchal oligarchy.
While the plebeians had eventually been persuaded to remain
as part of the existing system without radically altering
its fabric, the women are perceived as bent on annihilating
it without offering any viable alternative, only chaos and
anarchy (omnium reruro libertatem. imroo licentiam . . .
desiderant). What makes capitulation to the women's
pressure more dangerous than the concessions granted to the
plebeians is, in Cato's eyes, the fear that the women's
demands?unlike those of the plebeians?will escalate, and
eventually lead to the establishment of total feminine
domination: "As soon as they will begin to be your equals,
they will be your superiors" (extemplo. simul pares esse
coeperint, superiores erunt). Such an event would mean the
end of Rome's supremacy over the rest of the world,
supremacy achieved thanks to the "masculine" virtues of its
leading class. If the women were allowed to take over by
relaxing discipline, the scenario would not be different
from the island quoted at the beginning of Cato's tirade:
280
the entire male gender would be symbolically wiped out,
because in a society run by women's unrestrained licence
"real11 men would have no place. What women really want,
according to Cato, is the opposite of what the Roman male
elite has created by means of self-restraint, discipline and
obedience to tradition and hierarchy.
The subversion of the established social and cultural
order operated by the women's seizure of power is poignantly
exemplified in the image of their triumph over the
vanquished law: "... that we may be carried through the
city as in triumphal parade over the law vanquished and
abrogated and over the votes captured and snatched away from
you [the Senators]; that there should be no limit to our
spending and luxury" (. . . velut triumphantes de leae victa
et abrogata et captis et ereptis suffragiis vestris per
urbem vectemur; ne ullus modus sumptibus. ne luxuriae sit).
The greatest masculine distinction in Rome, the triumphal
parade, has been usurped by women; the victory has been
celebrated not over foreign enemies that threaten Rome's
stability, but over the very same laws that make such an
order possible. The system of checks and balances implied
by suffragiis and lege is countered by ne ullus modus, which
suggest total lack of restraint not simply in spending and
luxury, but especially the anarchy and chaos that eventually
lead to tyranny.
281
2. Sex and Poisons
Women involved in activities aimed at de-stabilizing
the status quo appear in another Livian narrative, that
concerning the Bacchanalian scandal.7 The orgiastic cult
of Bacchus, of Oriental origin, is here described as being
based on the systematic annihilation of the social, cultural
and familial bonds that defined Roman society. According to
tradition, the nightly celebrations granted unrestrained
sexual licence to all participants, culminating in the
homosexual initiation of young men. However, the violation
of the boundaries between male and female was not the only
crime committed: perjury, forgery, and poisonings resulting
in the death of relatives, were also practiced. The
majority of the followers seem to have been women, many of
them noble, and young men, also of noble families; their
numbers were large, characterized by the consuls as a
population within the population (alterum iam populumK*
Nevertheless, their forces were contemptible (nulla adhuc
vires coniuratio), since they were constituted of women and
effeminates (mulierum maana pars est . . . deinde simillimi
feminis mares). Despite the type of activities promoted by
the leaders, the object of the cult does not appear to have
been the overthrow of the state. This goal is rather
assumed by the consuls and by the senators:
Then a great fear caught hold of the Fathers, both
for public safety, lest these conspiracies and
282
nocturnal gatherings might bring about some hidden
treachery or danger, and privately for their own
sakes, lest any of their own relatives be involved
in the crimes.
Patres pavor ingens cepit, cum publico nomine, ne
quid eae coniurationes coetusque nocturni fraudis
occultae aut periculi importarent, turn privatim
suorum cuiusque vicem, ne quis adfinis ei noxae
esset.
(39.14.4)
The link between the predicament of the state and that of
the senators' families is rather clearly established. It is
reasonable to assume that quis adfinis may refer to the
senator's wife as well as to members of her family. The
senators' anxiety is motivated both by concern for their own
political careers and also regarding the possibility of
becoming victims of poisoning and forgery. Coincidentally,
the leaders of the cult in Rome are said to be two members
of the Roman plebs, another parallel, although far less
univocal, with the episode of the repeal of the Oppian law.
The Bacchanalian scandal supplies a significant element
that links matrons, immoral behavior and subversive attempts
against family and state?poison. The equation of mulier
impudica with veneficg was an established rhetorical
principle, since adultery?one consequence of the lack of
283
restraint (cf. ne ullus modus of Cato's speech)?impelled
the guilty woman to eliminate the husband, obstacle to her
passion. The veneficus and the mulier infamis are listed
among the typical supporters of Catilina, along with the
effeminate youths expert at spargere venena. In imperial
times veneficia fin principem) was usually one of the
charges?along with interest in the occult and consultation
of Chaldean magi concerning the imperial family?brought
against political rivals of the emperor and their adherents.
Women were particularly susceptible to this charge, often
combined with that of adulterium (Aemilia Lepida, connected
with the group of families supporting Agrippina and
Germanicus, and Claudia Pulchra, cousin and friend of
Agrippina).*
According to Livy, the very first trial in Rome
involving politically motivated poisoning took place in 334
B.C. and was so unprecedented as to be treated as a portent,
an act of collective madness.10 The alleged culprits were
a large group of matrons, the victims an equally large
number of primores civitatis. Livy is inclined to believe
that the sudden deaths may have been caused by epidemics
fostered by the unhealthy climate. The official version
preferred to attribute the deaths to human agency, and the
matrons became a convenient scapegoat. Many of them were
caught making concoctions they claimed to be medicamenta and
were forced to drink their own potions. A group of them
284
died, another hundred and seventy were found guilty. Since
the monstrosity of the event defied logical explanation, it
was considered a portent and dealt with accordingly by
magical means. Harmony (and health?) was restored by means
of the same remedy that had healed the city after the
secession of the plebeians many years before.
Poison, women and conspiracies are not always
necessarily connected. In the context of Roman
historiography, however, poison seems an appropriate
metaphor for subversion, within the family structure and?in
a wider context?within the state, since it attacks the body
from the inside and is generally administered to the victim
by trusted family members. In two of the passages examined,
the matrons?the guardians and transmitters of family
tradition?manufacture poisons used against their families
(venena indidem intestinaeque caedes) and against the
primores civitatis.11
The episode of the alleged mass poisoning by the
matrons also points to the ambivalence of medications,
medicinal potions and remedies, which can be used for
killing as well as for healing. The preparation of
medications was originally a feminine activity involving the
brewing of herbs and potions, probably connected with a
woman's role as a midwife. With the development of more
stratified societies the medical profession passed into the
hands of men, free or slaves. Wealthy Roman households
285
included medical personnel, doctors and midwives, for the
care of the familia. Yet the mistress of the house might
demonstrate an interest in brewing home remedies, despite
the presence of male doctors. The ambiguity of the practice
is easily displaced onto its practitioners, so that one
could easily imagine how Livia, to whom such ambiguity
applied, acquired the reputation of a poisoner.13
3. Subversive Women
The supposed collusion between matrons and plebeians
implied by Cato's speech and by the Bacchanalian rituals
prompts the examination of a related topic?the perception
that women allied themselves to the less worthy or
disenfranchised elements of society, attempting to wrestle
control from male authority figures, either the Senate, the
emperor, or the paterfamilias. This collusion is
represented in various ways: Tanaquil and Servius (the
slave-prince), the younger Agrippina and the imperial
freedmen, the faithless matrons and Catiline's ramshackle
army, the wives of Roman governors and disreputable
provincials. Although these examples range from legend to
history to rhetorical topos, the pattern persists with minor
variations.
This supposed alliance is clearly portrayed in Cicero's
orations against Catiline: the dichotomy between the Patres,
also referred to as Optimates and Boni by Cicero, and the
chaotic rabble enlisted by Catiline assumes unequivocal
286
moral overtones. Cicero fondly reiterates the concept that
his rival's forces are indeed contemptible because they are
made up of the dregs of society, i.e., criminals, slaves,
ruined veterans, immoral women and effeminate youths.13
In the first oration, Catiline is defined as a "rouser
of slaves and ruined citizens" fevocatorem servorum et
civium perditorum): among the many types of "ruined
citizens" Cicero lists the mulier jnfamis as one of
Catiline's cronies. Although Cicero chose not to elaborate
on this point, Sallust specifically refers to the role that
these women were expected to play when he describes the
matron Sempronia. Her presence in the narrative seems
puzzling; while it is generally agreed that she represents
the female equivalent of Catiline, her role in the plot does
not warrant the detailed portrayal she is given by Sallust.
Except for a cursory mention at a later stage, she
practically takes no part in the action. Syrae tentatively
identified her with an aunt of the famous Fulvia, wife of
Antony, but failed to explain the incongruity between her
characterization and her actual role in the conspiracy. B.
Weiden Boyd, on the other hand, sees Sallust's emphasis on
Sempronia as a moral judgment on the whole conspiracy and on
the degeneration of Roman virtus in general: "Sempronia is
both Catiline's complement and his ironic reverse: both use
and abuse the products of luxuria to manipulate others
. . . both represent a perversion of the natural order,
287
Catiline by his lack of virtus and Sempronia by her
possession of its Ersatz, virilis audacia."14
She is one of many ladies of distinguished family who
must resort to prostitution in order to cope with their
expensive and extravagant life-style. Deeply mired in debt,
they are recruited by Catiline, with the task of securing
the support of the city slaves: "Through them Catiline
thought he could tempt the city slaves to his side and set
fire to the city, and either attach their husbands to him-
self or else do away with them" (Per eas Catilina credebat
posse servitia urbana sollicitaref urbem incendere viros
earum vel adiunaere sibi vel interficerei(Sail.. B. C. 24).
These women are the anti-Lucretias, who hold their modesty
in little account and who, one may assume, would not be
above using their charms to attract slaves (Sallust does not
really explain by which means they were to stir up city
slaves). In a different speech (Pro Caelio). Cicero draws a
picture of the social arena in which a woman like Sempronia
operated. The matron lambasted in this piece is Clodia, a
woman who, like Sempronia, had all she could want?noble
family, noble husband (whom she was rumoured to have
poisoned), wealth and beauty. Her biggest fault, in
Cicero's eyes, was that of being the sister of his bitter
political rival Clodius, tribune of the people and
demagogue. The condition of her house represents, in
microcosm, that of a state left to the whims of women and
288
slaves:
Who in fact, omicron judges, does not see or ignores
this, that, in such a house, where the mistress of
the house lives like a prostitute, where nothing
is done that could be mentioned in public, where
orgies, debauchery, luxury, all the most unthinkhyphenminus
able vices and crimes are carried out, the slaves
are no longer slaves, to whom all tasks are
entrusted, by whom all is accomplished, who
participate in the same pleasures . . .
Quis enim hoc non videt, iudices, aut quis
ignorat, in eius modi domo in qua mater familias
meretricio more vivat, in qua nihil geratur quod
foras proferendum sit, in qua lustra, libidines,
luxuries, omnia denique inaudita vitia ac flagitia
versentur, hie servos non esse servos, quibus
omnia committantur, per quos gerantur, qui
versentur isdem in voluptatibus . . .
(23.57)
As in the Bacchanalian scandal, the quest for unrestrained
licence has undermined the orderly activity of the household
hierarchy, so that in its place there is undifferentiated
anarchy, and the slaves are on equal footing with the
domina. The word mater familias conjures up images of
traditional respectability and even sanctity, in jarring
289
contradiction to the phrase meretricio more. In a reversal
of roles, women like Clodia and Sempronia, who possess all
the requisites necessary to be good guardians of the
household, instead of protecting their husbands from danger
or joining them in their exile or death, may destroy them by
dragging them into fatal enterprises. Along with the
effeminate youths amply described by Cicero, these women
constitute Catiline's "elite body-guard of whores"
fCatilinae scortorum cohortem praetoriam), a poor match
against the forces of virtue and of the Senate.15
Despite Cicero and Sallust's insistence on the
perverted creatures who formed Catiline's following, the
conspirators also counted among their numbers "respectable"
men, wealthy men fhorum omnium species est honestissimaf
sunt enim locupletes)f and ruined Sullan veterans who, if
nothing else, were exercitatione robustum. a group inured to
fatigue; however, the leader's favorites are the soft and
debauched young men:
these boys so smooth and delicate have been taught
not only to love and be loved, or to dance and
sing, but also to stab and poison. . . . Indeed
what do these wretches want for themselves? Are
they going to take their girlies along to camp?
Hi pueri tam lepidi ac delicati non solura araare et
amari, neque saltare et cantare, sed etiam sicas
290
vibrare et spargere venena didicerunt . . . Verura
taraen quid sibi isti miseri volunt? Num suas
secum mulierculas sunt in castra ducturi?
(2.10.22-23)
There seems to be little difference between these young men
and the women conspirators, if one compares their descrip-
tion with that given by Sallust of the matron Sempronia:
But among these was Sempronia, who had often
committed many crimes of masculine daring
. . . she was learned in Greek and Latin
letters, could play the lyre and dance more
gracefully than an honest woman needs, and had
many other accomplishments which minister to
voluptuousness . . . but even before she had
broken her word, repudiated her debts, been
accessory to murder; poverty and extravagance had
driven her headlong.
Sed in eis erat Sempronia, quae multa saepe
virilis audaciae facinora commiserat . . .
litteris Graecis et Latinis docta, psallere et
saltare elegantius, quam necesse est probae, multa
alia, quae instrumenta luxuriae sunt . . . Sed ea
saepe antehac fidem prodiderat, creditum
abiuraverat, caedis conscia fuerat, luxuria atque
inopia praeceps abierat.
fBellum Catil. 25.2-4)
291
Both categories, that of the promiscuous women and that
of the dainty young men, present similar and interchangeable
characteristics: for instance, the young men are expert
dancers and singers, like Sempronia, objects and subjects of
love (amare et amari) and skilled poisoners. Both types
have been brought to such depths by their love of money,
luxury and unrestrained licence. Love of luxury, typical of
women, emasculates men and renders them simillimi feminis:
their skill as poisoners symbolizes this, since poisoning,
given its association with duplicity, was considered by
Romans to be a typically feminine crime.1*
Sempronia, on the other hand, is said to have often
committed crimes of virilis audaciae. These being
Catiline's picked troops, the struggle against him pits the
forces of virtue, order, freedom, all embodied by the
Senate, against those of vice, chaos and tyranny. Since the
Senate is Rome's exclusively male governing body, the
implication is that virtue, order and freedom are associated
with "masculine" ethos; could their opposites symbolize
"feminine" chaos and anarchy?
4. Female tyrants
Lack of self-restraint, violent passions and a thirst
for power characterize women as a category and as
individuals when they allow their personal ambition to
encroach on male territory. Without adequately strict
control, there would be a breakdown of those social and
292
cultural distinctions and differentiations which regulated
Roman society and permitted its functioning. For instance,
the unrestrained sexual licence fostered by the Bacchanalia
accompanied criminal acts against family and property
(forgery, perjury). Catiline's favorite accomplices are
represented as lirainal, men who behaved like women and women
who committed manly crimes. The abolition of demarcations
between the feminine and masculine spheres of action
engenders confusion and lawlessness, eventually leading to
tyranny. This is exemplified by Tacitus' description of the
evils caused by the governor's wife and by Appian and Dio's
narration of Fulvia's actions.17
Fulvia is no great favorite of Roman writers, who
universally stress the negative sides of her character, in
particular her supposed lack of femininity; this was taken
to explain her desire to rule over men. Her early years,
spent in the socially acceptable roles of wife and mother,
are almost totally ignored in the assessment of her
character. Instead, she has left her mark in history as the
bloodthirsty virago who instigated the Perusine War and the
savage proscriptions that cost Cicero his head.
With reference to the theme of women triumphing over
the symbols of male authority (cf. Cato's speech), Dio
reports an incident in which Fulvia, at the height of her
power as wife of Antony and mother-in-law of Octavian,
granted the triumph to her brother-in-law Lucius for a
293
victory he had not achieved. She is represented as ruling
as a queen, her will being law for both the senate and the
representatives of the people, neither of which dared to
contradict her. She initially refused Lucius' request for
the undeserved triumphal honors, probably because, as
Fortsch assumes, it seemed a ridiculous request; yet later
on, "when her favor was courted" (tnel deltaepsilontonos epsilonkappaepsiloniotatonosnueta
thetaepsilonrhoalphapiepsilonupsilonthetaepsiloniotatonossigmaalpha), she changed her mind and granted it."
Dio presents the incident as being dictated by the
whims of a vain woman, who incidentally seems to respond, in
a stereotypically feminine way, to flattery. Perhaps
Fulvia's initial refusal may be better explained by her
desire not to let anything?not even a mockhyphenminustriumph?
distract the Romans' attention from Antony's own
achievements. Her subsequent change of heart may likewise
have been motivated by a desire to add to the family's many
successful enterprises, in competition with those of young
Octavian's, who at that time was also her sonhyphenminusinhyphenminuslaw. Dio
alludes to the fact that she, more than Lucius, boasted of
the triumph, and with good reason: except for the fact that
he donned the triumphal garb and went through the motions of
the ceremony, it was Fulvia who?to all effects?was
celebrating the victory.19
Lucius is therefore degraded to the role of actor and
impersonator in a show that, in substance, has become
similar to those in the Circus. This time, however, the
294
show is not offered to the crowds by a state official to
enhance the importance of his family, but by a woman who,
though powerful, has no public office. The analogies with
Cato's metaphor of the triumphant women are striking. This
triumph is likewise celebrated only superficially over
Rome's external enemies, while actually it is over Rome
herself, since Fulvia has usurped all the prerogatives of
the governing bodies. She enjoys not only the senate's
decision-making power, but also acts as a general and
commander-in-chief, and not just by proxy. After the
capture of Praeneste, she conducted deliberations with her
associates and, with the sword at her side, passed the
watchword and occasionally harangued the troops.20
It is hardly surprising that such a radical departure
from standard expectations of feminine behavior earned her
the antipathy of supporters and foes alike, who concur in
representing her as an androgynous creature, totally
uninterested in proper feminine activities and lacking any
sentiment of solidarity for her fellow women.31 On the
other hand, her single-minded devotion to Antony is evident,
since in his absence she undertook to lead the struggle
against his rival Octavian: her extreme means were
commensurate with the extremity of the situation.
Fulvia's behavior, hardly the standard specimen for a
Roman matron, came in response to a troubled political
situation she had not created. Nevertheless, the type of
295
anti-female rhetoric that animates Cato's speech survived
through the centuries and found a complement in the speech
delivered by Caecina Severus many centuries later against
the presence of the magistrates' wives in the provinces.
While Cato had imagined the women celebrating a hypothetical
and symbolic triumph over the male social order, Caecina
pictures them as having taken over the command of the troops
and of the provinces, stressing the harmful consequences.
His opening remarks establish that the presence of
women among the soldiers runs against the grain of the Roman
character, the army being the ultimate male institution and
the foundation of Rome's power: military camps were
traditionally off-limits to respectable women, regardless of
the amount of power they enjoyed. Even Livia, at the height
of her authority, never set foot in the camp of the
pretorian guard.22 On the other hand, a few Roman examples
to the contrary could be found, and some even of women
celebrated for their virtue.
The presence of women in the army was considered alien
to Roman tradition, a characteristic of either barbaric or
effete people. For instance, some Macedonian queens of
barbarian origin were at home both in the palace and on the
battlefield. Their last descendant was Cleopatra, who
insisted on taking part in military action to the chagrin
and demoralization of Antony's Roman soldiers. Later,
Zenobia of Palmyra led her armies against Parthians and
296
Romans, while Boudicca was the sole leader of the British
revolt against the Romans (at her death the revolt fell
apart). The Syrian women of the Severan dynasty were
actively present in the army, as Julia Domna's title Mater
Castrorum indicates. As their origins denote, most of these
women were Eastern (Cleopatra, Zenobia, the Severans), which
places them within a certain tradition. Caecina contends
that, if wives were allowed in the camps, the well-ordered
march of the Roman legions would come to resemble the
procession of a barbarian army.
The term barbarus is rather generic, applied to anyone
beyond the pale of Roman culture. The Germans were
accustomed to taking along wives and children on some
military expeditions, as their presence was thought to spur
the men to fight more bravely." In the present context,
however, the image conjured up seems to refer more to the
corteges of Eastern monarchs, who were notorious for
hampering the effectiveness of their forces by sometimes
dragging their harems on the march, along with their
retinues and baggage. The luxury of such corteges had on
occasion demoralizing effects on the undisciplined Eastern
armies. This seems to be implied by the juxtaposition of
luxus and formido in Caecina's claim "that they impede the
attainment of peace with their luxury, the conduct of
warfare with their cowardice" (pacem luxu, bellum formidine
morentur), since luxury and cowardice were recognizable
297
characteristics of a stereotypical East.2*
The main inconveniences presented by women on the march
were not just due to the general weakness of the gender, but
especially to the dangers arising from their alleged lack of
discipline and restraint. This is the old Catonian theme of
feminine licence (cf. Livy, 34.2.14) with a vengeance:
"if given free rein, they are cruel, intriguing, power-
thirsty" (si licentia adsit, saevum, ambitiosum. potestatis
avidum). The women make themselves commanders-in-chief, in
a manner analogous to Fulvia's: "They parade among the
soldiers, have the centurions at their beck and call;
recently a woman presided over the exercises of the cohorts,
and at the manoeuvres of the legions" (incedere inter
milites. habere ad manum centuriones; praesedisse nuper
feminam exercitio cohortium, decursu legionum). After this,
the next step for the governor's wife is that of setting up,
to all effects, a dyarchy:
there are two potentates to salute in the streets,
two government houses, the more headstrong and
autocratic orders coming from the women who, once
kept at bay by the Oppian and other laws, have now
cast their chains and rule supreme in the home, in
the courts, and by now in the army itself.
duorum egressus coli, duo esse praetoria,
pervicacibus raagis et impotentibus mulierum iussis
298
quae, Oppiis quondam aliisque legibus constrictae,
nunc vinclis exsolutis, domos, fora, iam et
exerc itus regerent.
(3.33.4)
The rule established by the women is therefore the
worst form of tyranny for the helpless provincials. Women,
generally speaking, are wild and untamed animals unable to
set limits to their own licence, cruel, ready for intrigue
and power-thirsty. Because of this, they tend to attract
the basest local elements, who court the favor of the
magistrates' wives because the women have taken all business
into their own hands.
The passages examined so far deal with various Roman
instances which, despite differences in chronology,
reiterate the same theme, i.e., that the alienation of women
from the political process is essential to the welfare of
the state. Any inroad made by women into politics is
perceived by most historians as a fundamental alteration of
the natural order of things, not just of the hierarchy
within the state. Nowhere else are these tenets more
clearly displayed than in the mythology surrounding the
battle of Actium, which in unambiguous and redundant terms
exploits the opposition of Virtue/Masculinity/Rome/Octavian
versus Corruption/Feraininity/East/Cleopatra.
Octavian's harangue to the troops before the battle of
Actium, as Dio imagined it, is instructive in its lack of
299
subtlety.25 After having established the inherent
righteousness of his cause by identifying it with the Roman
cause, Octavian elucidates the reasons underlying the
conflict, which at the same time constitute implicitly the
conditions for his success:
For we, who are Romans and lords of the greatest
and best portion of the world, should be despised
and trodden underfoot by an Egyptian woman, it is
unworthy of our fathers . . .
To gammaalphatonosrho rot Rhoomega?alphaiotatonosomicronupsilonsigma1 re deltanutaualphasigma1 kappaalphaiota tauetatonossigma1 pi?epsiloniotatonossigmatautau\sigma1 kappaalphaiota
alpharhoiotatonossigmatauetasigma1 omicroniotakappaomicronupsilon?epsilontonosnuetasigma1 alphatonosrhochiomicronnutaualphasigma1 kappaalphataualphaphirhoomicronnubetaiotadieresistonossigmathetaalphaiota kappaalphaiota
kappaalphataualphapialphatauepsiloniotadieresistonossigmathetaalphaiota :taurhoomicrontonossigma1 gammaupsilonnualphaiotakappaomicrontonossigma1 ?iotatonosgammaupsilonpitauiotatonosalphasigma1 alphatonosnualphatonosxiiotaomicronnu ?epsilontonosnu
tauomegatonosnu pialphatauepsilontonosrhoomeganu eta?omegatonosnu
(50.24.3)
The sentiments expressed in this sentence echo those of
Cato's speech in Livy fnunc domi victa libertas nostra
impotentia muliebri^ and also the words of the consul
concerning the Bacchanalian threat (nulla adhuc vires
coniuratio): men chafing at the arrogance of the women who
threaten their superiority while at the same time needing to
belittle their opponents as unworthy, as women and simillimi
feminis mares, perhaps to reassure themselves of their own
superiority. Here the contrast between the superiority of
the Romans and the inferiority of the present enemy is
stressed by the enumeration of the mighty peoples previously
300
conquered by Rome, enemies who were much more formidable
than the present one because they were "masculine" and
savage (Cimbri, Ambrones, Gauls, Pannonians, Germans,
Britons). Now instead, Octavian's troops face
Alexandrians and Egyptians (what worse or what
truer name could one apply to them?), who worship
reptiles and beasts as gods, who embalm their own
bodies to give them a semblance of immortality,
who are most reckless in effrontery but most
feeble in courage and who, worst of all, are
slaves to a woman and not to a man?
'?lambdaepsilonxialphanu6rhoepsiloniotadieresistonossigma1 re kappaalphaiota ?iotagammaupsilontonospitauiotaomicroniota deltanutauepsilonsigma1 (tau I gammaalpharho alphanu
alphatonoslambdalambdaomicron tauiotasigma1 alphaupsilontauomicronupsilontonossigma1 chiepsiloniotatonosrhoomicronnu t\ alphatonoslambdaetathetaepsilonsigmatauepsilonrhoomicronnu epsiloniotapiepsiloniotatonosnu epsilontonoschiomicroniota;)
kappaalphaiota taualpha ?epsilonnu epsilonrhopiepsilontaualphatonos kappaalphaiota tau' alphatonoslambdalambdaalpha thetaetarhoiotatonosalpha omegasigmahyphenminus'epsilonrho tau iotatonosnualphasigma1
thetaepsilonomicronupsilontonossigma1 thetaepsilonrhoalphapiepsilonupsilontonosomicronnutauepsilonsigma1, taualpha 5epsilon sigmaomegatonos?alphataualpha taualpha sigmaphiepsilontonostauepsilonrhoalpha epsilonxi
<5omicrontonosxialphanu alphathetaalphanualphasigmaiotatonosalphasigma1 taualpharhoiotachiepsilonupsilontonosomicronnutauepsilonsigma1, chialphaiotatonos thetarhoalphasigmaupsilontonosnualphasigmathetaalphaiota ?epsilonnu
pirhoomicroniotatauepsilontauepsilonsigmataualphatauomicroniota alphatonosnuomicrontonosrhoiotatonossigmaalphasigmathetaalphaiota <5epsilon alphasigmathetaepsilonnuepsilontonossigmataualphatauomicroniota deltanutauepsilonsigma1,
kappaalphaiota tauomicrontonos ?epsilongammaiotasigmatauomicronnu gammaupsilonnualphaiotakappaiotatonos alphatonosnutau'alphanuiotatonosrhoomicrontonossigma1 iotatonosomicronupsilonlambdaepsilonupsilontonosomicronnutauepsilonsigma1.
(50.24.6hyphenminus7)
Egypt is represented as a place in which natural hierarchies
have been inverted: animals are gods, corpses seem immortal
and men willingly submit to a woman ruler, when submitting
to a man would be bad enough. This sentiment can be
compared to that expressed by Tacitus in Germania 45: "The
Sitones are for all other things similar to the Suiones,
301
except that they are dominated by a woman: to such an extent
they degenerate not just from liberty but from slavery as
well" (Suionibus Sitonum aentes continuatur. Cetera similes
uno differuntf quod femina dominatur: in tantum non modo a
libertate sed etiam a servitute degeneranti. Dio repeats
the concept endlessly and without nuance: back in Alexandria
from the Actiura fiasco, Cleopatra enrolled her son Caesarion
and Antyllus, son of Antony, among the youths of military
age, so that the Egyptians would feel reassured, since they
finally had a man for their king.
Not only does the rule of a woman over men constitute
servitude, it also contradicts nature. The threat that
Cleopatra poses to the Romans and their order is much more
elemental than the loss of prestige and possessions. She
does not merely turn men into slaves, but into actual women:
Roman knights and senators fawn upon her like eunuchs.
Antony, once imperator. has worn himself out playing the
woman (gammaupsilonnualphaiotakappaiotatonoszeta?iota) and, putting himself physically in the
company of eunuchs, followed her chair on foot with her
eunuchs when she rode into town.2* One could almost add
that Antony seems to follow her chair as a captive would
follow a triumphal parade. Cleopatra is assimilated to a
witch, a novel Circe, but more dangerous: Circe externalized
men's bestiality, Cleopatra eliminates their masculinity
(cf. the island of murderous women in Cato's speech).
Both she and her flock bring disease and contagion:
302
she is demens. ebria. lymphata in Horace's Ode 1.37,
adjectives that indicate lack of selfhyphenminuscontrol due to
insanity and intoxication. Her followers, through whom she
plans to conquer Rome herself, are effeminates tainted with
disease (contaminato cum qrege turpium/ morbo virorum 37.9hyphenminus
10). Their pollution threatens to weaken Roman courage and
manliness, transforming the masters of the world into nearhyphenminus
women, as the fate of Antony proves. It is therefore a
matter of survival for the Romans to maintain unsullied the
legacy of their forefathers in all its patriarchal
strictness:
And yet I can tell you of no greater prize than to
maintain the renown of your forefathers, to
preserve your own proud traditions, to take
vengeance on those who revolt against us, to
avenge yourselves on those who insult you, to
conquer and rule all mankind and to allow no woman
to make herself equal to a man.
Kalphaiotatonostauomicroniota ?epsiloniotatonoszetaomicronnu omicronupsilondeltaepsilontonosnu alphatonosnu alphatonoslambdalambdaomicron phietatonossigmaalphaiota?iota upsilondieresistonos?iotadieresistonosnu
*rhoomicronsigmakappa?iotadieresistonossigmathetaalphaiota tauomicronupsilontonos taudelta alphaxiiotatonosomega?alpha tauomicrontonos tauomegatonosnu pirhoomicrongammaomicrontonosnuomeganu
<5 iotaalphasigmaomegatonossigmaalphaiota, tauomicronupsilondieresis tauomicrontonos phirhoomicrontonosnueta?alpha tau delta omicroniotatonoskappaepsiloniotadieresistonosomicronnu phiupsilontonoslambdaalphaxialpha iota, tauomicronupsilontonos
tauomicronupsilonsigma1 alphatonosphi?sigmatauetakappaomicrontonostaualphasigma1 alphatonosphi'eta?omegatonosnu tauiota?omicronrhoetatonossigmaalphasigmathetaalphaiota, tauomicronupsilontonos tauomicronupsilonsigma1
upsilonbetarhoiotatonoszetaomicronnutaualphasigma1 upsilon?alphatonossigma1 alphatonos?upsilontonosnualphasigmathetaalphaiota, tauomicronupsilontonos taualphatonosnutauomicronnu alphatonosnuthetarhoomegatonostautauomeganu
nuiotakappaetatonossigmaalphanutauomicronsigma1 alphatonosrhochiepsiloniotanu, tauomicronupsilontonos ?tauiotadeltaepsilon?iotatonosalphanu gammaupsilonnualphaiotatonoskappaalpha ^ep
?etadeltaepsilonnuiotadieresis alphatonosnudeltarhoiotatonos taualpharhoiotasigmatauomicronupsilon?epsilontonosnuetanu
(50.28.3hyphenminus4)
303
In Dio's reproduction of Octavian's speech the motifs
employed by Livy in his speech for Cato have come full
circle: feminine arrogance and desire to be not just equal
to a man but to rule over him; the perceived threat of
obliteration of male hierarchical order from a feminine,
i.e., feminized, enemy (the myth of the island of women,
Cleopatra and her eunuchs, Bacchanalian revelers and
revolutionaries); lawlessness and corruption in government
caused by feminine licence and love of power (the governor's
wife). All these very disturbing elements are conveniently
summed up in the legendary figure of Cleopatra, a foreigner
onto whom internal Roman weaknesses could be projected: her
defeat allowed the Roman writers to exorcize, for a while,
the spectre of female domination.
The women examined so far were perceived as threatening
to Roman patriarchal and oligarchical values on account of
their unconventional behavior, which openly challenged the
distinction between "proper" political activity for women
(peace-makers, links to political alliances)?and was either
passive or unofficial?and the public sphere reserved
exclusively for males. In Cleopatra's case, aberrant
behavior is attributed to her foreign origin, while in
Fulvia's it is emphasized as lack of femininity, to the
detriment of her more conventional activities of wife and
mother. Sempronia is also represented as somewhat virile in
her criminal enterprises and intellectual capacities.
304
Visible aberration from the norm, however, is not the
conditio sine qua non for being regarded as a potential
threat to the system: the converse can be equally true.
Roman history abounds in examples of women of conventional
feminine virtues who alarm authorities by becoming the
rallying point of political opposition. Lucretia was the
first to use her virtue to destabilize monarchy; Cornelia,
the spotless mother of the Gracchi, was believed to be
somehow responsible for her sons' revolutionary politics and
was even suspected of having assassinated her son-in-law
Scipio Aemilianus for opposing her son Tiberius.27
5. Can "Good Women" Be Trusted?
Let us now consider the example of the elder Agrippina,
a woman of "notable fruitfulness and resplendent chastity"
(insigni fecunditatef praeclara pudicitia), who posed a
serious threat to Tiberius' rule. She could, in fact, rally
around her not only the civilian opposition but also part of
the troops, loyal to the memory of her father and her
husband, and who were also impressed by her strength of
character.28
Because of such strength, she is portrayed as
masculine (virilibus curis feminarum vitia exuerat), despite
her many children and her obsessive devotion to her husband.
Already at her first appearance Tacitus, an admirer of hers-
-at least superficially?points out that her personality
may, in other circumstances, be a liability rather than an
305
asset (quamvis indomitum animum), since quamvis reveals a
certain ambivalence. This ambivalence becomes apparent in
her obituary, where Tacitus uses the phrases aequi
impatienSf dominandi avida to describe her personality.
These are hardly complimentary terms, since the ideas they
express remind us of Cato's extemplo. simul pares esse
coeperint, superiores erunt.2*
By her death Agrippina became a heroine. Had she
lived and prospered, she would have been a female tyrant
like her daughter Agrippina and like Fulvia long before her.
Her active involvement in her husband's army life brought
her to Germany during the mutiny at the death of Augustus.
Her supporters asserted that the sight of her leaving the
camp put the mutineers to shame and helped to end the
revolt. The reality may have been very different.30
During these same years, Agrippina assumed on one occasion
the duties of a general by preventing the panicky soldiers
from demolishing a bridge on the Rhine; later she stood at
the head of the same bridge thanking and praising the
returning troops. On this occasion she also displayed her
motherly side by personally caring for the sick and wounded.
Her magnanimity toward the soldiers was, probably correctly,
perceived by those close to Tiberius as another "publicity
stunt," much like the display of little Gaius in his little
army boots. She, more than Germanicus, seemed to be
Tiberius' rival: "Already Agrippina counted for more with
306
the armies than any general or generalissimo; a woman had
quenched a rebellion which the imperial name had failed to
stop" (Potiorem iam apud exercitus Agrippinam quam legatos,
quam duces: compressam a muliere seditionem. cui nomen
principis obsistere non quiveritK31 Taken alone, this
sentence could be construed as approval of Agrippina's
involvement, since the result of her actions seems to be the
pacification of troops vital to the survival of the empire:
she is here performing a meritorious service similar to that
of Coriolanus' mother and wife and to that of the Sabine
women. Yet the tone of the entire paragraph registers
disapproval, probably even from Tacitus himself, although he
can disguise it behind Tiberius' persona:
Nothing would be left for the comraanders-in-chief
to do when a woman inspects the units, approaches
the standards and plans for money distributions
... a woman had quenched a rebellion which the
imperial name had failed to stop.
Nihil relictura imperatoribus ubi femina manipulos
intervisat, signa adeat, largitionera temptet . . .
compressam a muliere seditionem, cui nomen
principis obsistere non quiverit.
(1-69)
The woman who inspects the units and distributes money
to the soldiers recalls the image of the governor's wife, as
307
well as the improper behavior attributed to Agrippina's
rival Plancina.32 Yet despite these indications, Agrippina
was exalted as a standard of ideal womanhood, particularly
after Gerroanicus' death:
Nothing however sank deeper into Tiberius' breast
than the kindling of men's enthusiasm for
Agrippina: the glory of her country, the last
scion of Augustus, the peerless pattern of ancient
virtue, so they styled her; and, turning to heaven
and the gods, they prayed for the continuation of
her issue, that they may survive their persecu-
tors.
Nihil tamen Tiberium magis penetravit quam studia
hominum accensa in Agrippinara, cum decus patriae,
solum Augusti sanguinem, unicum antiquitatis
specimen appellarent versique ad caelum ac deos
integram illi subolem ac superstitem iniquorum
precarentur.
(3.4)
Decus patriae. unicum antiquitatis specimen remind the
reader of those qualities that Lucretia represented; the
opposition of the virtuous matron to the tyrant can also be
applied to the contrast between Agrippina and Tiberius.
Ironically, the "tyrant" Tiberius vainly tried to harmonize
the reality of the principate with the old-fashioned
308
republican ideal so dear to history writers like Tacitus and
Livy. Agrippina's children, on the other hand, Caligula and
his sister Agrippina, turned out to be scourges for Rome.
6. Conclusion
Women as uncontrollable, savagely ambitious, bent on
affirming themselves over the community, unable to tolerate
equality?this is the standard image projected by Roman
historians, satirists and even poets. The vitia commonly
attributed to women, lack of modesty and chastity,
unruliness, arrogance, luxury, do not appear to be a source
of so much concern as the virilis audacia and curae of the
women who, by all other evidence, seem to conform most
closely to the male standards of the feminine ideal.
Fulvia's reputation discounts the uneventful years spent as
mother and wife (which account for most of her life) and is
based instead exclusively on her political activity.
Agrippina is viewed with ambivalence, despite her proven
virtue, because of her imperious and ambitious nature. This
deep undercurrent of distrust of women, perceived as
eroding the principles on which the community and the empire
had been built, invests even the virtuous, when she is
suspected of personal ambition. This is, along with the
commonly acknowledged motives (rhetorical topoi, political
invective, satire of customs), an essential element
recognizable in the foundation of the myth of Livia.
309
Notes to Chapter Six
1. B. Fortsch, Die politische Rolle der Frau in der
Romischen Republik (Stuttgart 1935) p. 56. Appian B. C.,
4.32, regarding lack of solidarity among women: Fulvia's
rude behavior toward the delegation of women protesting the
Triumvirs' unfair taxation.
2. Cf. P. Slater, The Glory of Hera (Boston 1968), pp. 237-
240, for a cross-cultural comparison of distrust of women
and fear of retribution in Greek and Arab society, and 255
n. 13 on myths of "primeval matriarchy"; pp. 244-247 on Arab
obsession of wives' affairs with African slaves; pp. 251-253
on Arab wife seen as a sorceress, and p. 254 on the more
destructive character of the sorceress in Greek myth (Me-
dea) .
3. Livy, 34.1-4. The adjective is often used in conjunc-
tion with words like mores (in vobis resident mores pristi-
nif Plaut. True. 7), virtus (uti suae pristinae virtutis
memoriam retinerent. Caes. Gal. 2.21.2), gloria (quem pulsi
pristina Tumi . . . gloria tollit. Verg. Aen. 10.143) in a
positive connotation.
4. A. Astin, Cato the Censor (Oxford 1978), pp. 25-26.
5. Tac. Ger_. 33.
6. J. Hellegouarc'h, Le Vocabulaire Latin des Relations et
des Partis Politiques sous la Republique (Paris 1963), pp.
95-96, 135-137.
7. Livy, 39.8-19.
8. Hellegouarc'h (above, n. 6), p. 515; populus refers
generally to the entire population, without class distinc-
tion, although at times Livy uses it as a synonym for plebs.
9. Ad Herennium 4.16.23; Quint., Inst. Or. 5.11.39: equa-
tion of poisoning with adultery; cf. also F. Santoro L'hoir,
The Rhetoric of Gender Terms (Leiden 1992), p. 41 n. 36.
Tac. Ann. 3.22, on Aem. Lepida, and 4.52.2 on Cl. Pulchra.
Cic. In Cat. 2.4.7, 2.10.23 on poisoners among Catilina's
accomplices.
10. Livy, 8.18.5-10.
11. Livy, 39.8.8.
310
12. R. Briffault, The Mothers (New York 1927) vol. 1, pp.
485hyphenminus489 on women surgeons and doctors in various societies
ancient and modern. M. Alic, Hvpatia's Heritage (Boston
1986), pp. 30hyphenminus32 on women's medical expertise in ancient
times. Cf. also J. A. Scutt, "Schemers, Dragons, and Witchhyphenminus
es: Criminal Justice and the Fair Sex" in Stereotypes of
Women in Power, ed. B. Garlick, S. Dixon and P. Allen (New
York 1992), p. 191. S. Treggiari "Jobs in the Household of
Livia," PBSR 63 (1975), pp. 48hyphenminus77, esp. p. 56.
13. Cic. In Cat. 2.3.5; 2.4.7; 2.5.10; 2.10.22hyphenminus23; 2.11.24hyphenminus
25. Cf. the consul's statement regarding the Bacchanalian
adepts in Livy 39.15.8hyphenminus10.
14. R. Syme, Sallust (Berkeley 1964), pp. 133hyphenminus135; B.
Weiden Boyd, "Virtus Effeminata and Sallust's Sempronia,"
Tau?Rho? 117 (1987), pp. 183hyphenminus201, esp. pp. 183hyphenminus182 nn. 2, 4 and
5 on the puzzle of Sempronia's characterization, and pp.
185, 197hyphenminus199 on her value as moral exemplum.
15. Sail. B. C. 24.4 on the task of women conspirators.
Cic. Pro Caelio 23.57 on Clodia. CIL 6.1527, laudatio
Turiae on women who protected their husbands. Cic. In Cat.
2.11.24 on effeminates and whores. See also B. Weiden Boyd
(above, n. 14), pp. 188hyphenminus190 on effeminate youths.
16. B. Weiden Boyd (above, n. 14), p. 193 on luxury as
emasculating. Livy 8.18; Juv. 1.69hyphenminus72, 6.610hyphenminus26, Tac. Ann.
2.69hyphenminus75, 3.7, 3.13, 3.17, 3.22, 4.52, on poison as a
feminine weapon.
17. Livy 34.2.13hyphenminus14. Tac. Ami? 3.33. Appian, C. W. 4.32.
Dio, 48.10.4.
18. Veil. Pat. 2.74.3, Florus, 2.16.2, Cic. Phil. 2.3,
Plut. Ant. 10.30 for a negative assessment of Fulvia. See
also C. Babcock, "The Early Career of Fulvia," AJP 86, 1,
pp. 1hyphenminus32 and B. Fortsch (above, n. 1) p. Ill; Appian CW
48.4.2.
19. Dio, 48.4.1hyphenminus5: "It was Fulvia herself who seemed to be
giving the spectacle, employing him as her assistant." See
also Fortsch (above, n. 1), p. 111.
20. Dio, 48.10.4. With respect to triumphing by proxy,
Livia was symbolically present to her family's triumphs,
since the men of her family used wreaths taken from her
"miraculous" laurel (Suet. Galba 1).
21. Appian, B. C. 4.32.
311
22. Tac. Ann. 3.33: Caecina Severus' speech. Dio, 57.12.3:
Livia's discretion.
23. F. Santoro L'hoir (above, n. 9), pp. 124hyphenminus126: Tacitus'
approval of the subordinate and supporting role of the
German women, in war as well as in peace, is indicated on
the rhetorical level by his use of the word femina (noble
woman, both in terms of class and of character) more often
than mulier (general term).
24. Besides the many antihyphenminusEastern tirades and remarks in
the Aeneid (for instance, 4.193hyphenminus194, 9.598hyphenminus620, 11.768hyphenminus777)
see also Georg. 2.172, Appian 3. C. praefatio 9, Dio,
50.24.6.
25. Dio, 50.5.2hyphenminus51.6.
26. Dio 50.27.4 (gammaupsilonnualphaiotakappaepsiloniotatonosomegasigma1 thetarhoupsilon^tauomicrontonos?epsilonnuomicronnu), 27.7.
27. Plut. Tib. Gr. 8.5, App. B. C. 1.20.83.
28. Tac. Armhyphenminus 1.41.
29. Tac. Aimhyphenminus 1.33.3, 4.52.2, 6.35.2hyphenminus3; cf. Livy, 34.3.3.
30. See D. Hurley, "Gaius Caligula in the Germanicus
Tradition," A?ZE 110 (1989), pp. 316hyphenminus338.
31. Tac. Ajinhyphenminus 1.69.
32. Tac. Annhyphenminus 2.55.6.
Chapter Seven
Livia's Legend: The Poisoning Noverca
By way of conclusion, we return to the problem
contained in the title of this study. Concentrating on the
negative portrayal of Livia by Tacitus, this chapter
examines the linkage between the Roman literary
representation of threatening female conduct (examined in
the previous two chapters) and the legend of Livia, noverca
and poisoner.
The strands that compose the legend are diverse; one
element in particular, namely the ambivalent relationship
between the upper-class Roman male and his mother
(exemplified by the conflict of Tiberius with Livia, of Nero
with Agrippina) remains to be examined in its social and
literary implications. Allowing for cultural differences
between Greeks and Romans, ambivalent mother-son
relationships in Rome share general features with those
examined and discussed by P. Slater between their Greek
counterparts.1 Rome was, like Greece, a patriarchal
society in which the authority vested in most of the
magistracies?with the exception of the tribunate?derived
from and was modelled on that of the paterfamilias. The
political competence and skills of upper-class women could
not find an outlet in public office, but were deflected onto
other networking activities (match-making, patronage), which
were essential to the political success of their family.
312
313
This networking degenerated on occasion into intrigue, hence
the misogynist rhetoric of Cicero against Clodia and Fulvia,
of Sallust against Sempronia and, in imperial times, of
Tacitus against Livia, Agrippina the Younger, Poppea and
many other ambitious upper-class females.3 The desire to
support, advance and protect her own son(s) may often have
driven an elite Roman mother to extremes, both in terms of
demands on her own son(s) and with respect to her treatment
of competing members of her husband's family. Thus, "the
protecting mother was all too often found to be
simultaneously acting the wicked step-mother."3
The stepmother, already at a remove from the natural
order, and thus an apt object of suspicions not readily cast
on the natural mother, begins a sequence of shadings that
include the witch and the poisoner. The notorious queen of
"Snow White," a stepmother who transforms herself into a
witch and delivers a poisoned apple?all this to prevent her
stepdaughter's accession to her rightful throne?embodies
the fluidity with which one of these figures migrates into
another. The crimes of stepmothers in Roman literature also
have as their aim the disinheritance of the legitimate heir,
not to mention the appropriation of the unsuspecting
husband's property. Poison, the insidious instrument of
such aims, makes explicit an ambivalence vis-a-vis food,
which in turn reflects back on the primary source of
nutrition?the mother (figs and mushrooms were suspect in
314
the deaths of Augustus and Claudius respectively). A
similar bifurcation applies to medicine, given that the
preparation of medicaments and poisons were the province of
a common art (and originally the vocation of witches). The
lanificium and veneficiumf seemingly contradictory compo-
nents of Livia's historiographical representation, are in
fact symptoms of this same ambivalence. The following pages
examine 1) the ambivalent mothers in Roman historiography
with a focus on Livia and the Agrippinas, 2) mother-figures
in the context of Livia's iconographical representations as
Ceres-Deraeter and Cybele, and 3) the traditional figure of
the noverca in Roman literature, and the witch, often linked
to the noverca.
1. Good Mothers. Bad Mothers. Dangerous Mothers
The common ground between Livia and Agrippina the
Younger lies in their own ambition, which manifested itself
in a desire to control their respective sons, for whose sake
they had intrigued, committed crimes and, in Livia's case,
even gone through fire. In both cases, the relationship
between mother and son quickly became intensely antagonistic
and resulted in abandonment for Livia, death for Agrippina.
Yet, despite these extreme instances, motherly ambition was
expected and encouraged by the Romans, since the mother was
supposed to be her son' s first and foremost mentor in
matters of virtue and family tradition. Moreover, Roman
girls as well as boys were likely to be influenced by their
315
ancestors' achievements and by the sight of their busts and
masks, displayed in the atrium and paraded at funerals.
Children sometimes attained primacy among their peers on
account of their mothers' lineage as well as that of their
fathers.4
Womens involvement in their family's key political
decisions was a matter of course, provided the advantage of
the family was sought, not the gratification of personal
ambition and pride. Given the fluidity of most upper-class
marriage arrangements, it was mainly through her son(s) that
a woman could reach beyond the limitations of her social
condition and play an active role in politics. Augustus'
beloved sister Octavia had been active in politics, but her
personal goals had been subsumed by those of her husband and
brother. In the midst of her rather boring perfection,
however, a fissure appeared: signs of personal ambition, to
be realized through her son Marcellus, were frustrated by
his untimely death. They were openly revealed by her
undignified mourning and, especially, by her bitterness
toward Livia and her sons.5
If Octavia's ambition manifested itself clearly only
toward the end of her life, that of Agrippina the Elder soon
became evident, and justly suspicious, particularly her
cultivation of the array's favor through her own person and
those of her children. Some of her children were born or
raised on the Northern frontier and in the camps, and Gaius
316
in particular was carried around dressed as a tiny soldier.
After the aborted revolt of the German legions a number of
stories began to circulate, probably with Agrippina's
approval, concerning her own adventures and those of little
Gaius/Caligula, as well as those of Germanicus. In addition
to having occasionally usurped the prerogatives of male
officers, she clearly used her little son, as well as her
husband, and the memory of her father and grandfather to
amass considerable goodwill among the soldiers: her male
relatives were clearly the means by which she could reach
beyond her feminine condition into the male world of
command. Despite her wifely virtues, she recalled in this
and in her unfeminine nature the notorious Fulvia.4
By contrast, Antonia was unanimously considered a
model of virtue as a wife and mother, despite her lack of
love for poor Claudius. Unlike Livia, whose house she
shared and with whom she lived in harmony until Livia's end,
Antonia demonstrated no excessive political ambition for her
children. This was probably because the two most promising,
Germanicus and Livilla, were both close to the peak of the
dynasty, while Claudius was out of contention. The death of
Germanicus did not elicit from Antonia extravagant
manifestations of grief. Her inexplicable absence from the
funeral rites caused Tacitus to imply coercion on the part
of Livia and Tiberius, who were also absent. N. Kokkinos
claims, contrary to commonly held views, that Antonia had
317
accompanied her son and his family to the East, had
witnessed Piso and Plancina's behavior and, as such, was
able to help avenge Germanicus' death, for which she
received official thanks along with Tiberius, Livia,
Agrippina and Drusus (and eventually also Claudius).
According to Kokkinos, Tacitus' statement about
Antonia's absence is incorrect: epigraphic evidence
discovered in Baetica mentions Antonia's involvement in the
preparations for the funeral.7 Yet Tacitus' allegedly
"incorrect" information concerning her absence seems to me
noteworthy. Despite the author's innuendo, Antonia shared
the traditional outlook of Livia and Tiberius?witness her
severity toward her own errant daughter Livilla. Tacitus
insinuates that Tiberius and Livia's official excuse for not
attending the funeral (a public display of their private
grief would have diminished their majesty) was a lie to
better conceal their joy. Yet Livia's exemplary reputation
had been enhanced by the strength and serenity demonstrated
on the occasion of her son Drusus' death. Her control over
her own feelings was well-known, admired by some,
misinterpreted by others as dissimulation. In reality, it
represented the ancient republican ideal of moral strength
exemplified by Lucretia and Brutus. The excuse quoted by
Tacitus seems compatible with Livia's "mask," which Antonia
may have adopted as a model of proper behavior for women in
their position."
318
Antonia's loyalty to Livia and Tiberius is especially
noteworthy in view of their association?in popular opinion
?with Germanicus' reputed murderers, Piso and Plancina.
Her closeness to Livia did not seem diminished either by the
Augusta's special plea to save Plancina or by the subsequent
disgrace of two of Antonia's grandsons (Drusus and Nero) and
of her daughter-in-law Agrippina. Perhaps in the latter
cases she saw Sejanus as the real culprit (hence her
severity toward Livilla), perhaps she disliked Agrippina's
overbearing ambition.9 At any rate, Antonia was portrayed
by Tacitus in an entirely positive manner, not only for her
acknowledged virtue, but?I believe?especially for her lack
of personal ambition in contrast with the other driven
mothers of the dynasty, namely Livia, Agrippina and Livilla.
Octavia, Agrippina the Elder, and Antonia exemplified
Roman ideals of wifely and motherly virtue; yet, while
Antonia avoided censure, Octavia and Agrippina could also be
presented negatively because of their undisguised ambition.
Neither became queen mother, that is, mother of the reigning
sovereign. As for Agrippina the Elder, her rule might not
have differed much from that of her daughter Agrippina the
Younger, had the gods granted her wish. It is thus possible
to assume that the literary representation, by the major
historians, of these mothers might not have been very
different from that of Livia by historians, had any of them
ever become Augusta. Vilification of political opponents
319
and of their relatives?especially of their womenfolk?had
been the only "equal opportunity" field in republican
politics, and some of the best orators had distinguished
themselves by tarnishing the reputations of their rivals'
women by means of outrageous stories and innuendos.
Tacitus' portrayals of Livia and Agrippina follow an estab-
lished tradition.10
By extreme irony of destiny, the unambitious Antonia
eventually achieved the state of Augusta; the title was
granted to her by her grandson Gaius, along with all the
privileges that Livia had received. Antonia, however,
apparently refused the title, which was again conferred on
her posthumously by her son Claudius. How much she would
have been able to influence Gaius' rule it is impossible to
tell, since she died six weeks after his accession, some
said, at his urging.11
The theme of motherhood as a profoundly ambivalent
representation of life and death is common to many
mythologies and religions, including the Greek and the
Roman, which assign great importance to maternal divinities
who are life-sustaining and protective, but also potentially
destructive, vindictive and castrating. Slater has drawn
attention to the presence in Greek mythology and literature
of fearsome and destructive females represented as
mature/maternal, and to the prevalence of maternal bogies
(Lamias) and witches in Greek folklore." Roman religion
320
and mythology, heavily influenced by the Greek, presented
similar characteristics; in particular, some of the
divinities usually associated with Livia, Hera-Juno, Ceres-
Demeter and the Great Mother Cybele are highly ambivalent
mother-figures.
2. Divine Mothers
Hera-Juno is the divinity whose characteristics most
remind one of Tacitus' definition of Livia, gravis mater,
gravis noverca: she was a harsh mother to her own son
Hephaestus, whom she had produced without the help of Zeus
and whom she "discarded?1 in anger because of his ugliness.
She was also known as a ruthless and vengeful step-mother
who persecuted the offspring of Zeus' many affairs. She
maintained these characteristics when she was assimilated to
the Roman Juno, but paradoxically she was also regarded as
the goddess of marriage and childbirth. Despite her poor
performance as a divine mother, Hera-Juno symbolized the
woman's generative power and oversaw the various stages of
childbirth.13
Ceres-Demeter, on the other hand, had mostly positive
connotations as a goddess promoting prosperity and fertility
in all its manifestations, as well as marriage and its
fruits. She was a loving mother, depicted holding a
cornucopia or wearing a crown of poppies, both of which
symbolize the earth as a vessel and a womb from which sprout
the seeds of food and civilized life. R. Briffault has
321
collected a staggering amount of evidence of the maternal
origins of agriculture; since it required peaceful and
stable conditions, agriculture was considered the foundation
of civic life and civilized society. Even gentle Demeter,
however, had threatening associates, Persephone queen of the
underworld and Hecate, goddess of the witches; both were
aspects of Mother Earth in her quality of devourer and
destroyer of life. Demeter herself, when angered at her
daughter's disappearance, refused to let the seeds grow and
hindered life.14
By far the most ambivalent maternal divinity associated
with Livia was Cybele, the Great Mother: originally a
goddess of wild nature, regeneration and fertility?like
Ceres-Demeter?and even of medicine, in Rome she was
associated with protection and victory against external
enemies. This is symbolized by her mural crown which?like
the cornucopia of Ceres?was also a symbol of containment
and protection, attributed to the archetypal Mother. Her
cult, orgiastic and ecstatic in origin, was recast in a more
suitable form by republican authorities, purged of those
characteristics that were inappropriate for a protectress of
the Roman state, namely the ritual self-mutilation of her
devotees. Significantly, the cult of her maimed lover Attis
became official only under Claudius.15 Nevertheless,
despite the more positive Roman connotations, the Great
Mother remained a powerful and potentially threatening
322
maternal figure. The ambivalence with which her cult was
regarded is evident even in the Aeneidf which strives to
present Cybele as Aeneas' most helpful supporter; it is
voiced by the Italian combatants usually in the form of
taunts to the Trojans. The topographical situation of her
temple in the religious and political heart of Rome, on the
Palatine (across from Augustus' and Livia's houses)
indicates the desire on the part of the patriarchal state to
incorporate all-encompassing female power and exploit it for
its own survival. The regulations imposed on the cult's
performance, on the other hand, indicate the state's need to
control and manipulate it in order not to lose its own
privileged manhood. The position of the Great Mother in the
state recalled to a certain extent that of the
materfamilias: both were honored, respected and
circumscribed.x*
Livia was, by family tradition, associated with Cybele
in a number of different ways and particularly by means of
her public persona as Mother of the state/universe. Feared
and honored by Tiberius, her energies and talent were?like
the power of the goddess?at the same time circumscribed by
him and channeled into activities in support of the dynasty.
Yet, like the Great Mother, she could curtail her son's
power, interfering, meddling, sometimes even embarrassing
him, such as when she caused him to plead for the unpopular
Plancina. The accounts of Tiberius' rule unanimously report
323
his frequent attempts to shake off his mother's influence or
at least to limit it. Some modern scholars even seem to
believe that Livia's death made Tiberius independent at
last.17
Despite Livia's acknowledged potentia and her prodding
and bullying of Tiberius, it was Agrippina the Younger,
daughter of Livia's alleged victim, who was consistently-
portrayed as the worst example of a mother-figure. Unlike
Livia, who was a demanding mother, Agrippina is consistently
portrayed as castrating, alternately seductive and domineer-
ing.
3. Livia and Agrippina
The narrative of the Annales presents a clear
progression of feminine tyrannical behavior from Livia to
Agrippina the Younger. The latter seems to magnify and
exaggerate some of the crimes and faults attributed by
Tacitus to Livia, in a manner which recalls Livy's
progression from Tanaquil to Tullia. Agrippina did what
Livia was only suspected of having done, and flaunted the
power that Livia had exercised discreetly. Publicly and
privately she had none of Livia's comitas and facilitas;
severitas. superbia and cupido auri inunensa are the terms
that frame her Tacitean portrait. While still married to
Claudius, Agrippina had made it abundantly clear that she
saw herself as socia imperil. receiving the homage and
entreaties of captive princes, driving to the Capitol in her
324
carpentum, and?more significantly?appearing in public
wearing a gold-threaded chlamys, a complement to Claudius'
paludamentum. The use of the golden chlamys is instructive:
a garment worn by men leading an active life (riding), it
was also associated with military life and was distinctive
of Hellenistic monarchs, whose privilege was the wearing of
gold. This sartorial detail, combined with Nero's peculiar
password to his guards ("the best of mothers"), and to
Agrippina's certainty of her support among the praetorians,
can be interpreted as an intimation that?at the most
suitable opportunity?she would not hesitate to make herself
sole ruler.18
Unlike Livia with Augustus, Agrippina obtained what
she wanted from Claudius minis magis quam precibusf and
jealously guarded her monopoly over husband and son. For
this reason she persecuted and caused the death of perceived
rivals. As for her relations with Nero, they consisted
alternately of bullying, melodrama and seduction, extending
well beyond the limits of Livia's heated arguments with
Tiberius. Agrippina's modus operandi with her son was,
usually, truci ac minaci; she could deliver the rule to him,
but could not tolerate his command and made it clear to him,
as she had to Claudius, that she expected the entire prize
of her efforts. Since power was invested in the men of the
family, she resorted to extreme means in order to maintain
her hold over them, especially over Nero. Thus, this "vir-
325
ile" mother could, on occasion, employ typically feminine
tricks: blandimenta and, as an extreme resort, lasciva
oscula et praenuntias flagitii blanditias. being ready to
commit even incest with her son. Her blatant attempt to
appropriate her son's manhood to increase her own power was
frustrated by the warning of Nero's mistress, that the army
would not tolerate an incestuous ruler. Regardless of the
army's moral sense, the underlying subliminal message was
that the institution symbolic of Roman manhood would not
accept a phallic woman as ruler.19
A number of observations need to be made at this point.
First, Tacitus deliberately creates a link between the two
Agrippinas by means of their shared characteristic,
atrocitas. To both applies the description aequi irapatiens.
dominandi avida; however, in the case of the daughter (who
behaved as socia imperil already under Claudius), the desire
for a one-woman rule is further stressed by the implication
that Nero would be a puppet ruler (quae filio dare imperium.
tolerare imperitantem nequibatl. For this purpose Agrippina
intended to pit him against Britannicus, the legitimate
heir, to ensure Nero's compliance with her wishes. Here it
is possible to detect ideological echos of the Livian simul
pares esse coeperint, superiores erunt in the Oppian Law
episode. This is also the main difference between Livia and
Agrippina the Younger: for all of Livia's suspicious
activities, one-woman rule could not be imputed to her,
326
probably because Tiberius had already gained considerable
experience by the time of his accession to power. The next
observation concerns Agrippina's use of feminine weapons
(blandiraenta, blanditiae. artes, insidias, inlecebrael to
further her own ends. In this respect, she is closer to
Livia than to her mother: Tacitus stresses Livia's obscurae
artes to discredit (the already disreputable) Agrippa
Postumus and to ensnare the aging Augustus. However, in her
use of sexuality for political ends, which included illicit
affairs with freedmen, Agrippina again departs from Livia,
recalling instead the themes of the Augustan propaganda
against Cleopatra. The Egyptian's reputation was tarnished
by the epithet reqina meretrix, who debases herself with her
slaves (famulos inter femina trita suos) and emasculates
men. With Cleopatra, Agrippina shares also superbia.
avarice, and the use of poison.20 While superbia is one of
the typical vices of a tyrant, the other two are the basic
elements of the stereotype of the evil stepmother.
Agrippina, therefore, even more than Livia is portrayed as a
dangerous mother with stepmotherly characteristics.
4. The Stepmother and the Witch
Akin to the dangerous mother and to the evil stepmother
is the witch, which completes the series of representations
of maternal ambivalence. These characterizations suggest
images of subversive deviance from patriarchal codes of
moral feminine behavior and from the patriarchal order in
327
nature, family and?ultimately?state. The instrument
through which these women perform their subversive deeds is
poison, veneficium being the crime most commonly associated
with stepmothers; their modus operandi consists of
blandimenta and artes, shared with the witches. These
elements constitute the connecting links between these
deviant females and the others?also deviant?who aspire to
political preeminence in the state.21
The tradition of the evil stepmother seems to have
originated rather early and was well-established by the
early empire. Both Gray-Fow and Noy remark on the
surprisingly extensive use of the noverca stereotype by
Augustan poets, especially by Virgil and Horace, who were
close to the First Family. On the other hand, the First
Family could proudly point to Octavia as a shining example
of a good stepmother; as for Livia, her reputation of gravis
noverca. had not yet been established."
The stereotype can be traced to Greek mythological
influences, in particular to stories concerning Hera,
Phaedra and Medea. However, while the myths of Phaedra and
Medea stress sexual aspects of the bad mother/stepmother
stereotype, the jealous character of Hera?transferred to
the Roman Juno?became the prototype of the stepmother who
weaves intrigues against her stepsons for reasons other than
rebuffed sexual passion. In Roman literature the evil
noverca often appears in the context of economic or patrimo-
328
nial disputes. Thus the evil stepmother is, for Noy, "the
product of Roman obsession with property and inheritance."
Quintilian, in fact, complains about the plethora of
rhetorical exercises on the subject at the expense of others
of more contemporary interest. This, in turn, may be a
reflection of the frequency with which controversial inheri-
tance cases were heard in the courts. Noy's point is rein-
forced by Gray-Fow: the early origins of the noverca stereo-
type indicate that it became established in a period in
which, legally, it may have been relatively easier for her
to inherit her husband's substance than it was in later
times.23 This patrimonial aspect turns the Roman stepmoth-
er into the antithetical but complementary side of the elite
Roman wife and mother, custos and preserver of the family's
moral and material patrimony.
Stepmotherly blandishments were responsible for
altering a father's will to his children's disadvantage on
the grounds that they were unworthy or immoral. Often a
stepmother's designs were motivated by her desire to improve
the position of her own children, in which case?as
mentioned above?the devoted mother and the evil stepmother
coincided. There was also a further, more radical dimension
to the stepmother's potentially destabilizing effect on the
family: taking possession of a man's wealth is closely
related to usurping his social and political power and?
symbolically?his manhood. Avarice is, therefore, a vice
329
common to stepmothers and female usurpers.
The comments above seem partially relevant to the
literary representation of Livia for which Tacitus is
responsible. Her obscurae artes (disclaimed by Suetonius)
were rumored to have discredited Agrippa Postumus and caused
his relegation: according to Dio, Agrippa reviled Livia as a
stepmother and accused Augustus of depriving him of his
father's inheritance. Despite lack of evidence, some modern
scholars even see Livia's hand in the discovery of Agrippa's
mother's "crimes," as the alleged motives were
retrospectively made to fit the final outcome of the
dynastic struggle. Livia's supposed "stepmotherly" hatred
for Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder, however, does not
seem to fit the patrimonial model: Tacitus' use of the
adjective novercalis conveys in this case rather the idea of
"unmotivated animosity." On the other hand, in the case of
Agrippina the Younger, the "patrimonial/economic" aspect of
the stepmother's activities merges with the social and
political more than in Livia's case. In fact Livia, who was
extremely wealthy, never displayed the grasping frenzy of
Agrippina, who purported to use for the benefit of the state
the wealth she was hoarding for herself. Tacitus implies
that, in reality, she was planning to use it to topple her
uncooperative son. To Agrippina's artes were ascribed
Claudius' most unpopular and unfair decisions, while her
inlecebrae (a related concept) had enabled her to enslave
330
Claudius. In both cases popular gossip attributed to the
stepmother's blandishments and traps the ruler's decision to
modify the order of succession, although both stepsons
(Tiberius and Nero) had been legally adopted.24
The disinheritance of Agrippa, allegedly brought about
by Livia's shady manoeuvres, and his suspicious and
mysterious death at Tiberius' accession showcase Livia's
talent as evil stepmother. However, the presence of the
adjective obscurae referred to her artes enriches her
literary image by introducing a further dimension, that of
witchcraft and magic. This impression is supported by the
occurrence of the verb devincire (to tie, chain, i.e., with
spells) in close proximity, and by Sallustius Crispus'
reference to arcana domus (the secrets of the ruling house)
that must not be divulged. To these indications of Livia's
role as a malevolent witch should also be added the
suspicion that she poisoned Augustus with his favorite figs.
Such suspicion is in turn openly expressed by Agrippina the
Elder who, at a banquet with Tiberius and Livia, refused an
apple offered by Tiberius for fear of being poisoned. Here
one detects traces of folkloric and mythological themes (the
figs were sacred to Demeter, but had also chthonian connota-
tions; the apple?in this case?may recall the apple of
discord at the banquet of the Olympians). The detail of
Augustus' poisoning by figs has a bitterly ironical
coloring: in addition to being sacred to Demeter, publicly
331
identified with Livia, a type of fig had also been named in
her honor. Perhaps the most significant factor in Tacitus'
subliminal assimilation of Livia to a witch is, however, her
supposed involvement in Germanicus' death. She appears as
the main culprit by virtue of her supposed "stepmotherly"
antipathy toward him and of her closeness to Plancina,
rumored to have procured his death through black magic and
on intimate terms with a notorious poisoner,
Martina.25 Popular opinion, stirred by Agrippina's
assumptions and by the seemingly inexplicable protection of
Plancina by Germanicus' grandmother, pronounced Livia guilty
by association, and in fact cast her in the role of the
instigator. Thus the noverca became also the witch.
A very thin line of demarcation separated, in the
ancient world, the doctor, the poisoner and the witch: these
were kindred feminine vocations, derived from the magical
abilities originally attributed to priestesses and queens.
Sites of cultic activity were often also places of healing:
the Temple of Bona Dea, with whom Livia had special ties of
devotion, functioned also as a pharmacy. As "managers" of
the family's property, including the human property, matrons
probably needed some medical knowledge, if not expertise, as
implied in Livy's narrative of Rome's first case of mass
poisoning. The women of the First Family experimented with
medicinal remedies, quoted in a few ancient medical
publications, while Cleopatra was interested in a variety of
332
medical studies, ranging from anatomy to cosmetology to the
effects of different poisons.26 Thus, states N. Purcell,
these legitimate activities and interests of matrons could
be used to imply their opposite, in the Livian tradition of
the matronae veneficae. In Livia's case in particular, they
were used in combination with the stereotypes of the noverca
and of the witch to underline the especially malevolent
character of her usurpation of power and its destructive
consequences for the dynasty and the state- The immediate
model for the Tacitean Livia was, however, Agrippina the
Younger. In addition to the thematic and structural
analogies examined by R. H. Martin and M. P. Charlesworth,
the present discussion is meant to highlight further
elements of Agrippina's portrayal that appear, even if
somewhat weakened, in Tacitus' interpretation of the
Tiberian principate.
Conclusion
N. Purcell states that the charges of poisoning against
Livia's public image of Mother of the dynasty, developed
from the Livian tradition of the matronae veneficae. were
motivated by her public position as princeps femina. While
this is generally undisputed, it does not sufficiently take
into account the force of ambivalence in the relations
within the family hierarchy and within the state with re-
spect to the position of the materf amilias.2 7
Such ambivalence is present in the cherished stereo-
333
type of the wool-spinning matron, which Livia consciously
adopted: in addition to the connotations of ancient feminine
virtue, spinning also represented the control over the
destiny of man. Hence Livia the spinner is symbolically
close to the Parcae, who spin out and measure the duration
of men's lives. This suggestion underlies the anecdotes
that feature Livia as guardian of the omens of her family's
destiny (represented by the laurel bough she planted and the
bird she saved). Spinning and weaving are also metaphors
for intrigue, thus Livia the spinner is transformed into the
crafty deceiver fUlixes stolatusK2*
Conversely, poison can be a health remedy that does
not work, hence it accomplishes the opposite. This defini-
tion presents a certain analogy to Augustus' dynastic
schemes. The selection of Tiberius as a successor was
intended to cure the endemic weaknesses of Augustus' new
order, but it inflamed the virulent hatreds within the
dynasty. Livia's function in this context was similar to
that of the ministrator of the potion, always the first to
be suspected if it did not work.
The combination of lanificium and veneficium in Livia's
historiographical representation is therefore not as anti-
thetical as it may seem. Both belong to spheres of feminine
competence which had great potential for symbolic ambiva-
lence. The same applies also to motherhood in a patriarchal
society: the mother can support and protect her children,
334
especially the sons, but she can also demand from them
unflinching allegiance, in order to realiae her own thwarted
aspirations. In elite Roman families this often meant the
ability to influence political life. Since wealth usually
accompanied power, the ambitious and supportive mother could
be transformed into a stepmotherly figure for the benefit of
her sons.
The pattern of ambivalence thus developed was based on
the sanctioning, at state level, of the inequality existing
within the family hierarchy. Enforced inequality, however,
always brings with it a fear of subversion and retribution:
along the metaphorical axis of male/female, this may imply a
symbolic loss of manhood. These are, in my opinion, the
themes underlying the historical myth of Livia, the poison-
ing noverca.
335
Notes to Chapter Seven
1. The subordinate position of women in both societies,
their official exclusion from public life, the potential
instability of Roman political marriages and the virtual
absence of Greek fathers from the early years of their sons'
life, combined with the greater valuation of sons in both
cultures, gave rise to conflicting attitudes on the part of
upper-class mothers. The sons were the means by which many
mothers could achieve goals vicariously where social custom
prohibited their direct fulfillment. Hence the strong
emotional bonds, but also the control and manipulation,
demonstrated by some mothers. Yet the conflict between
Roman mothers and sons seems generally less extreme,
possibly due to the greater recognition, influence and
authority which Roman mothers traditionally enjoyed.
2. P. Slater, The Glory of Hera (Boston 1968), on Greek
mother-son relations. W. K. Lacey, "Patria Potestas," in
The Family in Ancient Romef ed. B. Rawson (Ithaca 1986), pp.
121-144, on the derivation of magistates' authority from
that of the paterfamilias. S. Dixon, "A Family Business:
Women's Role in Patronage and Politics at Rome 80-44 B.C,"
Classica et Mediaevalia 34 (1983), pp. 91-112, on women's
political impact in patronage.
3. J. McNamara and S. Wemple, "The Power of Women through
the Family in Medieval Europe," in Women and Power in the
Middle Ages, ed. M. Erler and M. Kowaleski (Athens, Georgia
1988), pp. 83-101.
4. Cf. Chapter Five of this study for general discussion of
mother's importance. Plut. Cat. Mi. 3 on the primacy of
Sulla's son among peers because of his mother Caecilia
Metella. Suet. Tib. 6 on Livia going through fire.
5. Sen. Ad Mar. 2.4 on Octavia's bitterness.
6. Tac. Ann. 1.41, 44, 1.69, Suet. Gaius 9 on Agrippina's
and Gaius' influence on the mutinous troops, Dio 57.5.6-7 on
Germanicus' family taken hostage. Dio 57.6.3, Tac. Ann.
12.27.1 on Gaius' and Agrippina's birth-places.
7. N. Kokkinos, Antonia Augusta (London 1992), especially
pp. 17-20, 23, 37-39. The evidence mentioned seems to me
insufficient: Antonia's name appears in the enumeration of
the relatives' statues to adorn Germanicus' arch. This,
however, is no indication that she participated in the
funeral rites.
336
8. Tac. Ann. 3 on Antonia's absence, 5.1.3 on Livia's
dissimulation; Dio, 58.2.5 on Livia's control over jealousy;
Sen. Ad Mar. 3.1-2 on Livia's admirable strength after
Drusus' death; Livy 1.59.5 on Brutus castigator lacrimarum
inertium querellarum.
9. J. Nicols, "Antonia and Sejanus," Historia 24 (1975),
pp. 48-58: the story of Antonia's decisive action to
discredit Sejanus is probably a Claudian or Flavian
invention. If there was a conspiracy against Tiberius,
Gaius was more likely to be its leader, since he was 19 at
the time (the age at which Octavian made his bid for power).
10. Suet. Gaius 23, on Gaius' insulting and threatening
treatment of Antonia, which accelerated her death. Cic. Pro
Caelio (Clodia), Pro Cluentio (Sassia), Phil. 2.113, 3.16,
6.4, 13.18 (Fulvia).
11. Suet. Gaius 15 on honors granted to Antonia, Claudius
11 on Antonia's rejection of the title of Augustaf Dio
59.3.4-7, Suet. Gaius 23 on Gaius' unkind treatment of his
grandmother, and on suspicions of poison.
12. P- Slater (above, n. 2), pp. 11-12, 63-68: as examples
of threatening mature females one should count Hera (harsh
mother and step-mother), Aphrodite (occasionally), Clytemn-
estra, Medea, Circe and the historical Olympias, mother of
Alexander. Cf. also E. Neumann, The Great Mother (New York
1955), on archetypal representations.
13. Among the many specializations of Juno: Lucina, who
makes the child see the light, Opigena, who brings help to
the women in labor, Iuga, Pronuba, Domiduca, Cinxia. Juno
was also the female equivalent of Genius.
14. E. Neumann (above, n. 12), pp. 45, 80, 148-149, 162-169,
on Demeter/Hecate. Cf. A. N. Sherwin-White, Racial Preju-
dice in Imperial Rome (Cambridge 1967), pp. 3, 5, 7-8, 30,
on the view that agriculture was the prerequisite for
civilized society. Cf. R. Briffault, The Mothers (New York
1927), vol. 3, pp. 2-4 on agriculture as an originally femi-
nine activity.
15. E. Neumann (above, n. 12), pp. 45-47, 283, on symbols
of containment and nourishment, associated with feminine
protection. Catullus 63, on horror at Cybele's bloody
rituals; Verg. &?n.. 9.617-620, 11.769-777, on the Trojans'
effeminacy in the context of Cybele's cult.
16. Cf. R. McKay Wilhelm, "Cybele: the Great Mother of the
Augustan Order," Verailius 34 (1988), pp. 77-101 for
Virgil's positive assessment of the goddess, and I. Becher,
337
"Der Kult der Mater Magna in augusteischer Zeit," Klio 73
(1991), pp. 157hyphenminus170.
17. For a negative assessment of feminine influence, cf. E.
Kornemann, Tiberius (Stuttgart 1960), p. 186: this scholar
is so obsessed by the evils of the Frauenregiment that he
disregards the reality of Tiberius' subsequent reign of
terror.
18. Tac. Ann. 12.37.4 on Acrippina as socia imperil,
12.56.3 on the golden chlamys. Cf. also, on this subject,
M. Kaplan, "Agrippina Semper Atrox," Studies in Latin
Literature and Roman History 1 (1979), pp. 410hyphenminus417, esp. p.
413 n. 12, and A. Alfoldi, "Insignien und Tracht der
Romischen Kaiser," MDAI Rom. Abt. 50 (1935), p. 50. Suet.
Nero 9 on the password to the guard, and Tac. Ann. 13.14.3
on Agrippina's alleged favor among the pretorians.
19. Suet. Tib. 51, Tac. Ann. 4.57.3 on Livia's reproaches
to Tiberius, 12.22, 12.64.3hyphenminus65, 13.13 on Agrippina's jealhyphenminus
ousy of other women; Tac. Ann. 14.2, Suet. Nero 28 on
attempted incest, and the power that Agrippina would have
gained from it.
20. Tac. Ann. 1.3.4 on Livia's artes. Livy 34.3.3, on
womens' arrogance. Tac. Ann. 6.25.2 on Agrippina the
Elder's personality, (jL%.7\3y 12.65.3, 14.2.2 on Agrippina's
use of sexuality, 12.7.3, 3G3.14 on her superbia, 12.7.3,
13.2 on her avarice. Propertius, 3.11.30 on Cleopatra.
21. M. J. G. GrayhyphenminusFow, "The Wicked Stepmother in Roman
Literature and History," Latomus 45 (1988), pp. 741hyphenminus757; D.
Noy, "Wicked Stepmothers in Roman Society and Imagination,"
Journal of Family History 16 (1991), pp. 345hyphenminus361; F. Santoro
L'hoir, The Rhetoric of Gender Terms (Leiden 1992), p. 141,
n. 78.
22. Virgil Eel. 3.33 (unfair stepmother), Geor. 2.128hyphenminus130,
3.282hyphenminus283 (poisoning, witchhyphenminuslike stepmothers); Hor. Carm.
3.24.17hyphenminus18 (Scythian stepmother's kindness, in contrast with
Roman's cruelty), ?E? 5.9 (stepmotherly look=dirty look);
Ovid Met. 1.147 (poisoning stepmothers).
23. D. Noy (above, n. 21), pp. 346hyphenminus347, 350hyphenminus353, 357; Grayhyphenminus
Fow (above, n. 21), pp. 753hyphenminus755.
24. Tac. Ann. 1. 3.4 on Livia's artes; Suet. Tib. 21, for
their disclaimer; Dio 55.3 2 on Agrippa's behavior toward
her. Tac. Ann. 13.18.2 on the use of Agrippina's wealth, and
12.59.1 on Agrippina's artes responsible for Claudius'
cruelty. D. Noy (above, n. 21), pp. 353hyphenminus354 on stepmothers'
intrigues. A. Ferrill, "Augustus and his Daughter: A Modern
338
Myth," Latomus 168 (1980), pp. 332hyphenminus346, esp. pp. 333hyphenminus334, on
modern scholars overestimating Livia's involvement with
Julia's case.
25. Tac. Ann. 1.6.3 on Sallustius' advice; 1.5.1, Dio
56,30.1 on poisoning of Augustus; Tac. Ann. 2.69.3, 2.71.2,
2.73.4, 2.74.2, 3.13.2 on Plancina suspected of witchcraft
and poisoning, 2.82.2, 3.7.2 on death of Martina, 3.10.2,
3.15.1hyphenminus2, 3.17 on Livia's involvement. Cf. F. Santoro L'hoir
(above, n. 21), p. 141 n. 78 on terms referring to witchhyphenminus
craft, and C. Questa, "La Morte di Augusto secondo Cassio
Dione," Parola del Passato 54 (1959), pp. 41hyphenminus53, esp. pp.
48hyphenminus49 nn. 19hyphenminus20 on fruit symbolism. Pliny Nu. H. 15.70 on
the figs named for Livia.
26. R. Briffault (above, n. 14) vol. 1, pp. 485hyphenminus489 on the
predominance of women doctors and surgeons also in modern
nonhyphenminusEuropean societies, and vol. 2, pp. 502hyphenminus570 on
religion's evolution from witchcraft. M. Alic, Hypatia's
Heritage (Boston 1986), pp. 30hyphenminus32 on women's medical experhyphenminus
tise in the past. N. Purcell, "Livia and the Womanhood of
Rome," PCPS 212 n. 32 (1986), p. 95 on a medical recipe
attributed to Livia.
27. N. Purcell (above, n. 26), p. 95.
28. Neumann (above, n. 12), pp. 226hyphenminus31, concerning the
goddess of fate; Dio, 48.52.3 and Suet. Galba 1, on Livia
and the omens; Suet. Gaius 23.2, on LiviahyphenminusUlysses; Iliad 3.
125hyphenminus28, on Helen weaving the deeds of Trojans and Achaeans;
Odyss. 2. 90hyphenminus110, on Penelope's web. On the literary level,
spinning and weaving are also metaphors for composition of
songs and poems.
Bibliography
1. Primary Sources
Appian. The Civil Wars, vols. 3-4 in Loeb Classical Library
(Engl. transl. H. White), Cambridge, 1913.
Aristoteles. Politics, in Loeb Classical Library (Engl.
transl. H. Rackham), Cambridge, 1932.
Caesar. Bellum Alexandrinum. Ed. B. Kubler. Leipzig,
1846.
Catullus. The Poems. Ed. K. Quinn. New York, 1970.
Cicero. Orationes. Ed. G. Long and A. J. Macleane. 3 vol
umes, London, 1851.
. Philippics. Ed. and transl. D. R. Shackleton-Bai
ley. Chapel Hill, 1986.
. Ad Familiares. Ed. and transl. D. R. Shackleton-
Bailey. Vols. 1-6, Cambridge, 1965-1967.
. Select Orations. Ed. B. D'Ooge. Chicago, 1918.
. Pro Caelio (Ital. transl. C. Giussani), Milano,
1989.
Dio Cassius. Roman History, in Loeb Classical Library
(Engl. transl. H. Cary), vols. 1-9, Cambridge, 1914-
1927.
Diodorus Siculus. Library of History, in Loeb Classical
Library (Engl. transl. C. H. Oldfather), 10 vols.,
Cambridge, 1933-1957.
Florus. Sallust, Florus and Velleius Paterculus (Engl.
transl. and notes by J. S. Watson), London, 1879.
Herodotus. Selections from Herodotus. Ed. A. Barbour.
Norman, Oklahoma, 1929.
Homer. Iliad in Loeb Classical Library (Engl. transl. A. T.
Murray), Cambridge, 1924.
. Odyssey (Engl. transl. R. Lattimore), New York,
1965.
Horace. Odes and Epodes. Ed. C. Lawrence Smith & T. Peck.
Boston, 1894.
339
340
Josephus. The Jewish War in Loeb Classical Library (Engl
transl. H. J. Thackeray), Cambridge, 1928.
Contra Apionem in Loeb Classical Library (Engl
transl. H. J. Thackeray), vol. 1, Cambridge, 1926.
. Jewish Antiquities in Loeb Classical Library
(Engl. transl. H. J. Thackeray), Cambridge, 1930.
Lactantius. Epitome. Ed. and French transl. M. Perrin.
Paris, 1987.
Livy. Ab Urbe Condita in Loeb Classical Library (Engl.
transl. B. O. Foster and H. L. Schlesinger), 13 vols.,
Cambridge, 1919hyphenminus1951.
Lucan. Pharsalia. Ed. and notes C. E. Haskins. London,
1887.
Macrobius. Saturnalia. Ed. J. Willis. Leipzig, 1963.
Martial. Selected Epigrams of Martial. Ed. E. Post.
Norman, Oklahoma, 1967.
Ovid. Tristia, Ex Ponto in Loeb Classical Library (Engl.
transl. A. L. Wheeler), Cambridge, 1924.
. Metamorfosi (Ital. transl. F. Bernini), vols. 1hyphenminus2,
Bologna, 1939.
. The Erotic Poems (Engl. transl. P. Green),
Harmondsworth, 1982.
Pliny the Elder. Naturalis Historia in Loeb Classical
Library (Engl. transl. H. Rackham), Cambridge, 1938.
Pliny. Epistulae. Ed. R. A. B. Mynors. Oxford, 1963.
Plutarch. Moralia in Loeb Classical Library (Engl. transl.
F. Cole Babbitt), 14 vols., Cambridge, 1938hyphenminus1959.
. Lives in Loeb Classical Library (Engl. transl.
B. Perrin), 11 vols., Cambridge, 1914hyphenminus1943.
Polybius. The Histories in Loeb Classical Library (Engl.
transl. W. R. Paton), 6 vols., Cambridge, 1922hyphenminus1927.
Propertius. Elegies in Loeb Classical Library (Engl.
transl. G. P. Goold), Cambridge, 1990.
Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria in Loeb Classical Library
(Engl. transl. H. E. Butler), 4 vols., Cambridge, 1921.
341
Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Ed. H. Volkmann. Berlin, 1964.
Sallustius. Sallust in Loeb Classical Library (Engl. tra
nsl. J. C. Rolfe), London, 1921.
Seneca. Moral Essays in Loeb Classical Library (Engl.
transl. J. W. Basore), 3 vols., Cambridge, 1928.
Epistulae Morales in Loeb Classical Library (Engl.
transl. R. M. Gumraere), 1925.
Strabo. Geography in Loeb Classical Library (Engl. transl.
H. L. Jones), 8 vols., London, 1923-1949.
Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars (Engl. transl. R. Graves),
Harmondsworth, 1957.
Divus Augustus. Ed. E. Schuckburgh. New York,
1979.
Tacitus. Annali. Ed. and Ital. transl. B. Ceva. Vols. 1-
2, Milano, 1990.
. Agricola. Germania. Dialoaus de Oratoribus. Ed.
and Ital. transl. A. Resta Barrile. Bologna, 1964.
Thucydides. Peloponnesian War (Engl. transl. R. Warner),
Harmondsworth, 1954.
Val. Maximus. Val. Maximi Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium
Libri Novem. Ed. C. Kempf. Leipzig, 1888.
Velleius Paterculus. Storia Romana. Ed. F? Portalupi.
Torino, 1967.
Vergilius. Aeneid. Ed. R. D. Williams. New York, 1972.
. Eclogues. Ed. R. Coleman. Cambridge, 1977.
. Vergilii Opera. Ed. R. A. B. Mynors. Oxford,
1969.
2. Secondary Sources
Alfoldi, A. "Insignien und Tracht der romischen Kaiser,"
MDAIR 50 (1935).
Alic, M. Hypatia's Heritage. Boston, 1986.
Anderson, M. "Portrait Medallions in the Imperial Villa at
Boscotrecase," AJA 91 (1987) pp. 127-135.
342
Aschbach, J. "Livia, Gemahlin des Augustus,?1 Denkschriften
der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. 13
(1864), pp. 36-84.
Astin, A. Cato the Censor. Oxford, 1978.
Babcock, C. "The Early Career of Fulvia," AJP 86 (1965),
pp. 1-32.
Baldwin, B. "Women in Tacitus," Prudentia 4 (1972), pp. 83-
101.
Balsdon, J. P- V. D. Roman Women. New York, 1962.
. Romans and Aliens. Chapel Hill,
1979.
. "Agrippina," OCD, 2nd ed., p. 31.
Bauinan, R. "Tribunician Sacrosanctity," RhM 124 (1981),
pp. 166-183.
. The Crimen Maiestatis. Johannesburg, 1970.
Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. London,
1992.
Becher, I. Das Bild der Kleopatra in der oriechischen und
lateiniscnen Literatur. Berlin, 1966.
"Der Kult der Mater Magna in Augusteischer
Zeit," Klio 73 (1991), pp. 157-170.
Borzsak, S. "Persertum und Griechisch-Roraische Antike,"
Gymnasium 94 (1987), pp. 289-297.
Bowersock, G. W. Augustus and the Greek- World. Oxford,
1965.
Briffault, R. The Mothers. 3 vols. New York, 1927.
Brouwer, H. H. J. Bona Pea. Leiden, 1989.
Chantraine, H. "Der tote Herrscher in der Politik der
romischen Kaiserzeit," GWU 2 (1988), pp. 67-80.
Charlesworth, M. P. "Livia and Tanaquil," CB 41 (1927),
pp. 55-57.
. "Tiberius and the Death of Augustus,"
44 (1923), pp. 145-157.
343
"Providentia et Aeternitas," Harvard
Theological Review 29 (1936), pp. 107hyphenminus132.
Chirassi Colombo, I. "Funzioni Politiche ed Implicazioni
Cultural! nell'Ideologia Religiosa di Ceres nell'Impero
Romano," ANRW 2.17.1, pp. 403hyphenminus428.
Crook, J. Law and Life of Rome. Ithaca, 1967.
Classen, C. J. "Die Konigszeit im Spiegel der Literatur der
romischen Republik," Historia 14 (1965), pp. 385hyphenminus403.
Corbett, J. "The Succession Policy of Augustus," Latomus
33 (1974), pp. 87hyphenminus97.
De St. Croix, G. E, M? "Suffragium: from Vote to Patron
age," British Journal of Sociology 5 (1954), pp. 33hyphenminus48.
Dixon, S. The Roman Mother. Norman, 1988.
. "A Family Business: Women's Role in Patronage and
Politics at Rome 80hyphenminus44 B.C.," Classica et Medievalia 34
(1983), pp. 91hyphenminus112.
Donaldson, I. The Rapes of Lucretia. Oxford, 1982.
DuncanhyphenminusJones, R. Structure and Scale in Roman Economy.
Cambridge, 1990.
Dunkle, R. "The Rhetorical Tyrant in Roman Historiography,"
?W 65 (1971), pp. 12hyphenminus20.
"The Greek Tyrant and Roman Political Invechyphenminus
tive," Tau?Rho? 98 (1967), pp. 151hyphenminus171.
DuryhyphenminusMoyaers, G. and M. Renard. "Apercu Critique des Trav
aux relatifs au Culte de Junon," ANRW 2.17.1, pp.
142hyphenminus202.
Eder, W. "Augustus and the Power of Tradition" in Between
Republic and Empire, ed. K. Raaflaub and M. Toher.
Berkeley, 1990.
Eisenhut, W. "Augures," Kleine Pauly 1 (1979), col. 734.
Etienne, R. "Le Culte Imperiel dans la Peninsule Iberique,"
BEFAR 191 (1958).
Fears, R. "The Cult of Virtues," ANRW 2.17.2, pp. 827hyphenminus948.
Ferrill, A. "Augustus and his Daughter: a Modern Myth,"
Latomus 168 (1980), pp. 332hyphenminus346.
344
Fishwick, D. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. 4 vols.
Leiden, 1987.
Fitzler "lulius (lulia)," EE 19 Halbband (1927), col. 904.
Flory, M. "Sic Exempla Parantur: Livia's Shrine to
Concordia and the Porticus Liviae," Historia 3 3 (1984),
pp. 309hyphenminus330.
"Abducta Neronis Uxor," Tau?Rho? 118 (1988), pp.
343hyphenminus359.
Fortsch, B. Die politische Rolle der Frau in der romischen
Republik. Stuttgart, 1935.
Frank, R. I. "Augustus' Legislation on Marriage and
Children," CSCA 8 (1975), pp. 41hyphenminus52.
Fugier, H. Recherches sur 1'Expression du Sacre' dans la
Langue Latine. Paris, 1963.
Gage, J. "Divus Augustus," Revue Archeologique 34 (1931).
Ghedini, F. "Augusto e la Propaganda Apollinea
nell'Amphoriskos di Leningrado," Archeoloaia Classica
38hyphenminus40 (1986hyphenminus1988), pp. 128hyphenminus135.
GilmartinhyphenminusWallace, K. "Women in Tacitus," ANRW 2.33.5,
(1992), pp. 3556hyphenminus3574.
Gilmore, D. "The Shame of Dishonor," pp. 39hyphenminus43, and "Honor,
Honesty and Shame: Male Status in Contemporary
Andalusia," pp. 90hyphenminus103, in Honor and Shame and the
Unity of the Mediterranean, ed. D. Gilmore. Washinghyphenminus
ton, 1987.
Giovannini, M. "Female Chastity Codes," in Honor and Shame
and the Unity of the Mediterranean, ed. D. Gilmore.
Washington, 1987, pp. 61hyphenminus74.
Glauning, E. Die Anhanaerschaft des Antonius und des
Octavians. Diss. Leipzig, 1936.
Grant, M. From Imperium to Auctoritas. Cambridge, 1946.
Graves, R. The Greek Myths. New York, 1955.
GrayhyphenminusFow, M. J. G. "The Wicked Stepmother in Roman Literahyphenminus
ture and History," Latomus 45 (1988), pp. 741hyphenminus757.
Greifenhagen, A. "Bona Dea," MDAIR 52 (1937), pp. 227hyphenminus244.
345
Grether, G. "Livia and the Roman Imperial Cult," AJP 67
(1946), pp. 222-252.
Gross, W. H. Iulia Augusta. Gottingen, 1962.
Gross, P. and G. Sauron. MDas Politische Programm der
offentlichen Bauten," in Kaiser Augustus und die
verlorene Republik. Mainz, 1988, pp. 48-68.
Guarino, A. "II Coup de Foudre di Ottaviano," Labeo 27
(1981), pp. 335-337.
Hallett, J. Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society.
Princeton, 1984.
Hanslik, R. "Arminius," Kleine Pauly 1 (1979), col. 601.
. "Agrippina," Kleine Pauly 1 (1979), col. 148.
Harrer, G. A. "Tacitus and Tiberius," AJP (1920), pp. 57-
68.
Hellegouarc'h, J. Le Vocabulaire Latin des Relations et des
Partis Politiques. Paris, 1963.
Hesberg, H. von. "Die Veranderung des Erscheinungsbildes
der Stadt Rom," in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene
Republik. Mainz, 1988, pp. 93-115.
Hillard, T. "On the Stage, Behind the Curtain: Images of
Politically Active Women in the Late Roman Republic,"
in Stereotypes of Women in Power, ed. B. Garlick, S.
Dixon, P. Allen. New York, 1992, pp. 37-64.
Hohl, E. "Besass Caesar Tribunengewalt?," Klio 32 (1939),
pp. 368-369.
Hofter, M. "Portrat," in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene
Republik. Mainz, 1988, pp. 291-343.
Hopkins, K. Death and Renewal. Cambridge, 1983.
Hurley, D. "Gaius Caligula in the Germanicus Tradition,"
AJP 110 (1989), pp. 316-338.
Jameson, S. "Augustus and Agrippa Postumus," Historia 24
(1975), pp. 287-314.
Jed, S. H. Chaste Thinking. Blooraington, 1989.
Jordan, H. Topographie der Stadt Rom im Altertum. 2 vols.
Rome, repr. 1970.
346
Kajava, M. "Roman Senatorial Women and the Greek East,"
in Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman
History, ed. H. Solin and M. Kajava. Helsinki, 1990,
pp. 59hyphenminus120.
Kampen, Nu. ?. "Between Public and Private: Women as Subhyphenminus
jects in Roman Art," in Women's History and Ancient
History, ed. S. Pomeroy. 1991.
Kaplan, M. "Agrippina Semper Atrox," Studies in Latin
Literature and Roman History 1 (1979), pp. 410hyphenminus417.
Koch, C. "Vesta," E? 2 Reihe (1958), col. 1744hyphenminus1752.
Kokkinos, N. Antonia Augusta. London, 1992.
Korneraann, E. Tiberius. Stuttgart, 1960.
. "Neue Dokumente zum lakonischen Kaiserkult,"Abhandlungen der schlesischen Gesellschaft fur
vaterlandische Cultur. 1. Heft (1929), pp. 1hyphenminus31.
. Doppelprinzipat und Reichsteilung im Imperium
Romanum. Leipzig, 1930.
Lacey, W. K. "Patria Potestas," in The Family in Ancient
Rome, ed. B. Rawson. Ithaca, 1986, pp. 121hyphenminus144.
La Rocca, E. "Der ApollohyphenminusSosianus Tempel," in Kaiser
Augustus und die verlorene Republik. Mainz, 1988, pp.
121hyphenminus136.
. Ara Pacis Auctustae. Rome, 1983.
Lattimore, R. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana,
1942.
Lebeck, W. "Ehrenbogen," Z?? 86 (1991), pp. 47hyphenminus78.
Leon, E. "Scribonia and her Daughters," Tau?Rho? 82 (1957),
pp. 168hyphenminus175.
Levi, M. Ottaviano Capoparte. Firenze, 1933.
Levick, B. "Tiberius' Retirement to Rhodes," Latomus 31
(1972), pp. 779hyphenminus813.
. "Julians and Claudians," G_&B 22 (1975), pp. 29hyphenminus
38.
. Tiberius the Politician. Sydney, 1976.
347
. "Atrox Fortuna," C_E 22 (1972), pp. 309-311.
. "Drusus Caesar and the Adoptions of A.D. 4,"
Latomus 25 (1966), pp. 227-244.
. "The Fall of Julia the Younger," Latomus 35
(1976), pp. 301-339.
Lindersky, J. "The Mother of Livia Augusta and the Aufidii
Lurcones of the Republic," Historia 23 (1974), pp. 463-
480.
Macurdy, G. Hellenistic Queens. Baltimore, 1932.
Marshall, A. "Tacitus and the Governor's Lady," G&R 22
(1975), pp. 11-18.
Martin, R. H. "Tacitus and the Death of Augustus," CO. 5
(1955), pp. 123-128.
Mattingly, H. Coins of the Roman Empire at the British
Museum. London, 1965.
McKay Wilhelm, R. "Cybele: the Great Mother of Augustan
Order," Verailius 34 (1988), pp. 77-101.
McNamara, J. and S. Wemple. "The Power of Women through the
Family in Medieval Europe," in Women and Power in the
Middle Agesf ed. M. Erler and M. Kowalewski. Athens,
1988, pp. 83-101.
Megow, W.-R. Kameen von Augustus bis Alexander Severus.
Berlin, 1987.
Meise, E. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Julisch-
Claudischen Dynastie. Munich, 1969.
Mellor, R. "The Goddess Roma," ANRW 2.17.2, pp.
Momigliano, A. and Cadoux, T. "Juba," OCD. 2nd edn. Ox-
ford, 1970, p. 566.
Mommsen, Th. Staatsrecht. Leipzig, 1887.
Miinzer, F. Romische Adelsparteien. Stuttgart, 1963.
Neumann, E. The Great Mother. New York, 1955.
Nicols, J. "Antonia and Sejanus," Historia 24 (1973), pp.
48-58.
348
Noy, D. "Wicked Stepmothers in Roman Society and Imaginahyphenminus
tion," Journal of Family History 16 (1991), pp. 345hyphenminus
361.
Ollendorff, L. "Livia,11 EE 13 (1927), col. 900hyphenminus924.
Pani, M. Tenden2e Politiche della Successione al Principato
di Augusto. Bari, 1979.
Pearce, Tau. E. V. "The Role of Wife as Custos," Eranos 72
(1974), pp. 16hyphenminus33.
Pekary, T. Das romische Kaiserbildnis. Berlin, 1985.
Philippides, S. "Narrative Strategies and Ideology in
Livy's Rape of Lucretia," Helios (1984), pp. 114hyphenminus119.
Platner, S. B. and T. Ashby. Topographical Dictionary of
Ancient Rome. Rome, 1965.
Pomeroy, S. Goddesses. Whores, Wives and Slaves. New York,
1975.
. Women in Hellenistic Egypt. New York, 1984.
Pouthier, Phyphenminus Ops et la Conception Divine de l'Abondance.
Rome, 1981.
Price, S. R. F. Rituals and Power. Cambridge, 1986.
Purcell, N. "Livia and the Womanhood of Rome," PCPS 212
(1986), pp. 78hyphenminus105.
Questa, C. "La Morte di Augusto secondo Cassio Dione," ia.
Parola del Passato 54 (1959), pp. 41hyphenminus53.
Raaflaub, K. A. and L. J. Samons II. "Opposition to Augushyphenminus
tus," in Between Republic and Empire, ed. K. Raaflaub
and M. Toher. Berkeley, 1990.
Radke, G. "Der Geburtstag des alteren Drusus," WJ 4
(1978), pp. 211hyphenminus213.
Ramage, E. "The Nature and Purpose of Augustus' Res
Gestae," Historia 54 (1987).
Rawson, E. "The Eastern Clientelae of the Claudii,"
Historia 22 (1973), pp. 219hyphenminus239.
. "More on the Clientelae of the Patrician
Claudii," Historia 26 (1977), pp. 340hyphenminus357.
349
Reynolds, J. Aphrodisias and Rome. London, 1982.
Richlin, A. "Julia's Jokes," in Stereotypes of Women in
Power. ed. B. Garlick, S. Dixon and P. Allen. New
York, 1992, pp. 65-91.
Ritter, W. "Livias Erhebung zur Augusta," Chiron 2 (1972),
pp. 313-338.
Rogers, R. S. Studies in the Reign of Tiberius. Baltimore,
1943.
Rostovtzeff, M. "Romische Bleitesseren," Klio 3 (1905),
pp. 1-126.
Rouland, N. Pouvoir Politique et Dependance Personelle.
Brussels, 1979.
Rutland, L. "Women as Makers of Kings in Tacitus' Annals,"
CW 72 (1978), pp. 15-29.
Sailer, R. "Anecdotes as Historical Evidence for the
Principate," GSR 28 (1981), pp. 69-83.
Sandels, F. Frauen der Julio-Klaudischen Familie.
Darmstadt, 1912.
Santoro L'hoir, F. The Rhetoric of Gender Terms. Leiden,
1992.
Sattler, P. Augustus und der Senat. Gottingen, 1960.
Scott, K. "Honorific Months," Y_?? 2 (1931), pp.
. "Tiberius' Refusal of the Title Augustus," CJ?
27 (1932), pp. 43-50.
Schwartz, R. Aarippa I. Tubingen, 1990.
Scutt, J. A. "Schemers, Dragons and Witches," in
Stereotypes of Women in Power, ed. B. Garlick, S. Dixon
and P. Allen. New York, 1992, pp. 181-208.
Seager, R. Tiberius. Berkeley, 1972.
Shotter, D. C. A. "Julians, Claudians, and the Accession of
Tiberius," Latomus 30 (1971), pp. 1117-1123.
Simpson, C. J. "Livia and the Constitution of the Aedes
Concordiae," Historia 40/4 (1991), pp. 449-455.
350
Sinclair, P. "Rhetorical Generalizations in Annales 1-6,"
ANRW 2.33.4, (1991), pp. 2795-2831.
. "Tacitus' Presentation of Livia Julia,'1 AJP
111 (1990), pp. 238-256.
Slater, P. The Glory of Hera. Boston, 1968.
Smethurst, S. E. "Women in Livy's History," G&R 19 (1950),
pp. 80-87.
Sontheiiner, W. "Alimenta," Kleine Pauly 1 (1979), col.
256-257.
Speidel, M. "Venus Victrix Roman and Oriental," ANRW
2.17.4, pp. 2225-2238.
Strack, L. "Zur Tribunicia Potestas des Augustus," Klio 32
(1939), pp. 358-381.
Suerbaum, W. "Merkwurdige Geburtstage," Chiron 10 (1980),
pp. 327-350.
Syme, R. Roman Revolution. Oxford, 1939.
. History in Ovid. Oxford, 1978.
"History or Biography: the Case of Tiberius Cae-
sar," Historia 23 (1974), pp. 481-496.
. Sallust. Berkeley, 1964.
Takacs, S. "Isis, Sarapis and the Roman Emperors," unpub-
lished lecture presented at the University of Oregon,
April 1993.
Tanner, R. G. "Thought and Style in Tacitus," ANRW 2.33.4,
(1991), pp. 2689-2751.
Taylor, L. R. "Tiberius' Ovatio and the Ara Numinis
Augusti," ME 58 (1937), pp. 185-193.
Temporini, H. Die Frauen am Hofe Traians. Berlin, 1978.
Torelli, M. "La Rappresentazione e lo Stile nella Dinamica
dell'Ascesa Sociale," Ouaderni Camerti di Studi
Romanistici 13 (1985), pp. 589-596.
Trankle, H. Appendix Tibulliana. Berlin, 1990.
Treggiari, S. "Jobs in the Household of Livia," PBSR 63
(1973), pp. 241-255.
Volkmann, H. Cleopatra. New York, 1958.
Weiden Boyd, B. "Virtus Effeminata and Sallust's
Sempronia," Tau?Rho? 117 (1987), pp. 183hyphenminus201.
Wilken, U. "Ehepatrone im romischen Kaiserhaus,"
Zeitschrift fur die Saviany Stiftung 29 (1908hyphenminus1909),
pp. 504hyphenminus507.
Willrich, H. Livia. Leipzig, 1911.
Winkes, R. "Leben und Ehrungen der Livia," Archeologia 36
(1985), pp. 55hyphenminus68.
Wiseman, Tau. Rhohyphenminus "The Mother of Livia Augusta," Historia 23
(1974), pp. 463hyphenminus480.
. Clio's Cosmetics. Leicester, 1979.
Zanker, P. Augustus und die Hacht der Bilder. Munich,
1990.
Zecchini, G. "II Carmen de Bello Actiaco," Historia 51
(1987).
Zinserling, G. "Kunstpolitik des Augustus," Klio 67
(1985), pp. 74hyphenminus80.