Livilla's death

[Octavia]

Hello everyone. Sorry I haven't been on the board in awhile. I've been pretty buisy with stuff. II was watching I, claudius and thinking about how Livilla died. Is it true that Antonia locked herin her room and she starved to death and what made her mother act in such a cruel way? I always read that Antonia was a respectible kind roman woman. How could she do that, especially to her own children?

[Ingsoc]

"It was in this way that Tiberius came to read her statement; and when he had obtained proof of the information given, he put to death Livilla and all the others therein mentioned. I have, indeed, heard that he spared Livilla out of regard for her mother Antonia, and that Antonia herself of her own accord killed her daughter by starving her." (Dio Cassius, 58.11.7)

 

Supposly it was her punishment for murdering her husband Drusus (Tiberius son, his called Castor in I Claudius) and conspire with Sejanus to overthrow Tiberius.

[Octavia]

Thanks for the interesting info. It's sad that Antonia behaved in that way though.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Mater potestas?

[ASCLEPIADES]

"It was in this way that Tiberius came to read her statement; and when he had obtained proof of the information given, he put to death Livilla and all the others therein mentioned. I have, indeed, heard that he spared Livilla out of regard for her mother Antonia, and that Antonia herself of her own accord killed her daughter by starving her." (Dio Cassius, 58.11.7)

 

Supposly it was her punishment for murdering her husband Drusus (Tiberius son, his called Castor in I Claudius) and conspire with Sejanus to overthrow Tiberius.

Salve, Amici. The emphasis is mine.

 

Once again, we must remember the gossip-like nature of this information provided by Cassius almost two centuries after the actual events, especially as it seems that closer sources (vg, C. Suetonius, C. Tacitus, F. Josephus, V. Paterculus) did not confirm such story.

Edited November 12, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ingsoc]

You have a good point ASCLEPIADES, infact it's even disputed if there were a conspiracy against Tiberius.

 

These sources seem to think that it's was Tiberius who conspire against Sejanus

 

"In addition to his old friends and intimates, he had asked for twenty of the leading men of the State as advisers on public affairs. Of all these he spared hardly two or three; the others he destroyed on one pretext or another, including Aelius Sejanus, whose downfall involved the death of many others. This man he had advanced to the highest power, not so much from regard for him, as that he might through his services and wiles destroy the children of Germanicus and secure the succession for his own grandson, the child of his son Drusus."(Suetonius, Life of Tiberius, 55)

 

Ann Boddington think that infact Tiberius was forced to dispose of Sejanus as the opposition to his elevation of rank grew to include many leading Romansand especially the commanders of the legions in Germany.

[Octavia]

So what do the other sources say about Livilla's death. I know that tacitus gossiped a lot and made things more dramatic than they really were. And what also happened to Sajanis's children? Did tiberius kill them too?

[caldrail]

Mater potestas?

 

Thats an interesting concept from a roman perspective, and I think although the romans were what we would now consider sexist, there are opportunites even in their way of life for women to assume responsibility and freedom. What interests me more is that there's no record of intervention. Rumours and stories are passed around in taverns nearby, and people whisper and gossip amongst themselves about these shocking events. In fact, its Antonia's respectability and status that allows her to get away with it. She is seen as doing the 'right thing', to punish her child for a murder, to exercise the roman right to control the family, an important principle in roman law and order, yet this is a right extended to the senior male member rather than a woman. Antonia wasn't married at that point was she? She was a widow, and therefore as the inheritor of an estate she was powerful in her own right, since there was no male partner to assume the reigns of family power. Mater Potestas is absolutely spot on.

Edited November 15, 2007 by caldrail

[Ingsoc]

Thats an interesting concept from a roman perspective, and I think although the romans were what we would now consider sexist, there are opportunites even in their way of life for women to assume responsibility and freedom. What interests me more is that there's no record of intervention. Rumours and stories are passed around in taverns nearby, and people whisper and gossip amongst themselves about these shocking events. In fact, its Antonia's respectability and status that allows her to get away with it. She is seen as doing the 'right thing', to punish her child for a murder, to exercise the roman right to control the family, an important principle in roman law and order, yet this is a right extended to the senior male member rather than a woman. Antonia wasn't married at that point was she? She was a widow, and therefore as the inheritor of an estate she was powerful in her own right, since there was no male partner to assume the reigns of family power. Mater Potestas is absolutely spot on.

 

I think it's connected to the transfer of Rome into a monarchy, in a monarchist rule there is an importand role for women - they suppose to be the mother of the future monarchs. due to this fact some women of the imperial family manage to get cinsidrable power (for women at least) and even official recognition (Livia is a good example of this).

[caldrail]

No, I disagree. Rome was never a monarchy although it evolved toward over centuries of empire. It was an autocracy however, with no established and accepted method of transferring power. It was Commodus who was the 'first man born to the purple', a break with the past by Marcus Aurelius and a precedent for future development.

 

In Antonia's case it isn't that she was the mother of future monarchs - lets face it - she had no intention of allowing Claudius to become head of the household given that she considered him a man who 'nature had not finished', and until the praetorians became keen to find an emperor sympathetic to their need for a continued easy life, he wasn't likely to be considered for emperor anyway. It was to do with status however, and in that sense I agree with your point. She was a mamber of a very influential family, people who led fashions, set the tone, people that were expected to be the leading lights in Rome. That meant she had to keep up appearances, to keep her own house in order before others must. For her family to be dragged through a scandalous court case to prosecute Livilla was anathaema.

[Ingsoc]

No, I disagree. Rome was never a monarchy although it evolved toward over centuries of empire. It was an autocracy however, with no established and accepted method of transferring power. It was Commodus who was the 'first man born to the purple', a break with the past by Marcus Aurelius and a precedent for future development.

 

The fact there was no etablished method of transfering power was due to the fact that the official propoganda proclaim that Augustus "restore" the republic, Augustus certinly consider his grandsons Gaius and Lucius as heir from the day they were born.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The fact there was no etablished method of transfering power was due to the fact that the official propoganda proclaim that Augustus "restore" the republic, Augustus certinly consider his grandsons Gaius and Lucius as heir from the day they were born.

 

I agree with Caldrail--unlike an official monarchy, there was no mechanism of succession. Augustus could consider anybody he'd like to be his heirs, but if Gaius had demanded sole power over Lucius (or vice-versa) there was no established order of succession to decide the matter.

[G-Manicus]

Further, don't you think that had he lived (or if Augustus had died earlier) that Agrippa would have been expected to assume control of the Empire, er ... Republic?

[Ingsoc]

Further, don't you think that had he lived (or if Augustus had died earlier) that Agrippa would have been expected to assume control of the Empire, er ... Republic?

 

Agrippa was Augustus heir untile his death, no doubt Augustus want him to be emperor and then he will be succeeded by Gauius and Lucius. Augustus desire that his blood relative will be his heir but he wasn't gonna give the empire to an unexperience youth (see for example the case of Marcellus) only after Tiberius retirement he began to think that the boys could inheret him directly.

[spittle]

So what do the other sources say about Livilla's death. I know that tacitus gossiped a lot and made things more dramatic than they really were. And what also happened to Sajanis's children? Did tiberius kill them too?

 

 

Can we return to this part of the thread?

In I, Claudius and The Caesars the children of Sejanus were strangled and, as it was illegal to execute a virgin, the young daughter was 'violated' first.

 

What do the primary sources have to comment about this?