Velleius and Livia: making a portrait E. Cowan (ed) Velleius Paterculus Making History 2011

16

VELLEIUS AND LIVIA: MAKING A PORTRAIT

Kathryn Welch

Mutatio Fortunae: a surprising portrait

Quis fortunae mutationes, quis dubios rerum humanarum casus satis mirariqueat? quis non diversa praesentibus contrariaque expectatis aut speret auttimeat? Livia, nobilissimi et fortissimi viri Drusi Claudiani filia, genereprobitate forma Romanarum eminentissima, quam postea coniugemAugusti vidimus, quam transgressi ad deos sacerdotem ac filiam, tum fugiensmox futuri <viri> sui Caesaris arma <mi>nus bimum hunc Ti. Caesarem,vindicem Romani imperii futurumque eiusdem Caesaris filium, gestans sinu,per avia itinerum vitatismilitum gladiis uno comitante, quo facilius occultareturfuga, pervenit ad mare et cum viro Nerone pervecta in Siciliam est.

Who can adequately express his astonishment at the reversals of Fortuna orat the different opportunities given to humankind? Who can refrain fromhoping for or fearing a fate different from that of the present or the oppositeof what he expects? At that time, Livia, the daughter of the most noble andbrave Drusus Claudianus, the most outstanding of Roman women in family,reputation and beauty, whom afterwards we saw as the wife of Augustusand, after he had joined the gods, as his priestess and daughter, was a fugitiverunning from that Caesar who was soon to be her husband, carrying at herbosom her infant of less than two years, now our emperor Tiberius Caesar,destined to be the defender of the Roman empire and the son of this sameCaesar. Pursuing by-paths so that she could avoid the swords of the soldiersand accompanied by only one attendant so that her flight might escapedetection more easily, she finally reached the sea and with her husband Nerocrossed over to Sicily. (Vell. 2.75.2–3)

A combination of superlatives, value-laden terms and evocative interjectionsleaves the reader in no doubt as to Velleius’ enthusiasm for Livia Drusilla,the future Julia Augusta. But what else can it tell us? This paper will arguethat the passage offers far more than an advertisement for the virtues of theemperor’s mother. It reflects the way that Livia was ‘packaged’ for widerconsumption by a Roman public recovering from civil war and adapting tothe reality of an emerging domus Augusta. Moreover, Velleius’ commentson Livia, though demonstrating essential continuities, show an acute

309

69749_Velleius_Book:Layout 1 26/9/11 14:10 Page 309

sensitivity to the ways in which her career evolved over the long anddramatic decades of her lifetime.

Our opening passage is Velleius’ second reference to Livia but her realintroduction to his history (Woodman 1983, 183–4). Livia, the daughter ofM. Livius Drusus Claudianus whose brave and honourable suicide afterPhilippi had been noted only a few chapters before (2.71.2), the then-wifeof Tiberius Claudius Nero who had come to grief in the wake of the youngCaesar’s counter-attacks on Campania, was forced to escape to SextusPompeius in Sicily in 41. From Sicily and then further travels, Livia andher husband would return in the wake of the Misenum Peace of 39. Shewould then marry the same Caesar and, after a long association with hisPrincipate, would become his priestess and daughter after his death.

The description is juxtaposed with that of Fulvia in the previous chapter(2.73.2–3). Fulvia ‘had nothing of the woman about her except her body’(nihil muliebre praeter corpus gerens). Livia, in contrast, excels in all the rolesRome expected of its women. Her loyalty to her husband is demonstratedby her willingness to share his danger, her motherliness by her personalcare of the baby Tiberius and her pietas to her father’s memory by theconstant inclusion of her filiation. She would, Velleius asserts, show thesame officium towards her next husband, the man who was at that timecausing her grief. In contrast, Fulvia’s flight receives none of the samemarks of approval, though the circumstances, as Dio’s parallel account(48.15.2–4) suggests, were very similar. Velleius’ Fulvia is allowed to leavebecause she had been a nuisance. Her courage is equated with rashness andhas nothing noble about it.1 Moreover, Fulvia has no power over the personalvalour and good fortune (virtus et fortuna sua) of the young Caesar whereasLivia’s is the story of fortune (even Caesar’s) changing for the better.

Velleius had more than one reason to linger on the moment of Livia’sflight. It allowed him to introduce the future emperor Tiberius and tocommemorate his own grandfather.2 However, there is more to his choiceof focus than this. In recounting the same event at the beginning of hisbiography of Tiberius, Suetonius gives his attention almost entirely to theinfant who very nearly betrays the whole party by his crying. Livia’s presenceis incidental to this rendition. She prosaically shares the danger (and thecare of the baby) with a wet-nurse, a detail which rather spoils Velleius’image of the devoted mother bravely bearing her child away to safety.

Infantiam pueritiamque habuit laboriosam et exercitatam, comes usquequaque parentum fugae; quos quidem apud Neapolim sub inruptionemhostis navigium clam petentis vagitu suo paene bis prodidit, semel cuma nutricis ubere, iterum cum a sinu matris raptim auferretur ab iis, qui pronecessitate temporis mulierculas levare onere temptabant.

Kathryn Welch

310


He passed his infancy and his youth amid hardship and tribulation, sincehe was everywhere the companion of his parents in their flight; at Naplesindeed he all but betrayed them twice by his crying, as they were secretly ontheir way to a ship just as the enemy burst into town, being suddenly tornfrom his nurse’s breast and again from his mother’s arms by those who triedto relieve the poor women of their burden because of the imminent danger.(Suet Tib. 6.1)

Dio offers us yet another version. He places Livia among other women,including Fulvia and Julia the mother of Antonius, who were caught up inthe same events (48.15.2). When he does turn his attention to Livia,however, he pauses to recall how her life represented a marvellous exampleof mutatio Fortunae.

µετὰ τούτων τῶν τότε πρὸς τὸν Ἀντώνιον ἐκ τῆς Ἰταλίας ἐκχωρησάντων καὶ

Κλαύδιος Τιβέριος Νέρων ἔφυγε. φρουρὰν γάρ τινα ἐν τῇ Καµπανίᾳ εἶχε, καὶ ἐπειδὴ

καθυπέρτερα τὰ τοῦ Καίσαρος ἐγένετο, ἀπῆρε σύν τε τῇ γυναικὶ Λιουίᾳ ∆ρουσίλλῃ

καὶ σὺν τῷ υἱεῖ Τιβερίῳ Κλαυδίῳ Νέρωνι, ὥστε καὶ τοῦτο ἐν τοῖς παραδοξοτάτοις

συµβῆναι· ἥ τε γὰρ Λιουία αὕτη ἡ τὸν Καίσαρα τότε φυγοῦσα µετὰ ταῦτα αὐτῷ

ἐγήµατο, καὶ ὁ Τιβέριος οὗτος ὁ σὺν τοῖς τοκεῦσι τότε ἐκδρὰς τὴν αὐτοκράτορα ἀρχὴν

αὐτοῦ διεδέξατο.

In this company, which at that time departed from Italy and took refugewith Antony, was Tiberius Claudius Nero. He had been in charge of agarrison in Campania, and when Caesar’s party got the upper hand, hewithdrew with his wife Livia Drusilla and with his son Tiberius ClaudiusNero. This, again, was one of the strangest whims of fate; for this Livia, whothen fled from Caesar, later on was married to him, and this Tiberius, whothen took flight with his parents, succeeded Caesar in the office of emperor.(Dio 48.15.3–4)

Dio’s account is similar enough to, and different enough from, Velleius’ tosuggest that Livia’s escape was a familiar and essential element of a well-known narrative concerning what happened to women during the periodof chaos. In contrast to Dio, Velleius distinguishes Livia from Fulvia andgives no space at all to the heroic activities of Julia (or Antonius). In bothcases Livia has been singled out as an example of everything turning out forthe best in a seemingly hostile but in fact providential world.3 We shouldask what message Livia’s good fortune offered to the wider public ofAugustan Rome.

Eminentissima Romanarum: Livia and the women of Triumviral RomeThe general trend in studies of Livia has been to suggest that after the flurryand chaos of the Triumviral period, women in general, and the ladies of theemerging First Family in particular, were deliberately hidden.4 In the wake

Velleius and Livia: making a portrait

311


of the settlement of 27, men took over the process of hammering out thenew way of doing things. Only when a new emphasis on dynastic politicscould no longer be denied did Octavia, the mother of Marcellus, and Livia,the mother of Tiberius and Drusus, receive renewed public attention. AfterOctavia’s death in 11, scholars observe a new emphasis on Livia, as partnerof her husband and, later, mother of the next princeps. All this is a fairreflection of our source tradition which was far more interested in thequestion of succession than it was in the women. Velleius, however, ispersonally devoted to and interested in Livia herself. His account of her lifealerts us to a different contribution: her role as a leader of Roman womenin the years before the establishment of the Principate in 27 and in themany years of political and social experimentation which followed.

It cannot be accidental that Velleius, Suetonius and Dio introduce Liviaas the wife of one of the Triumvirs’ opponents and at the moment of herflight from the soldiers of her future husband.5 The story associates herwith those women who openly defied the tyranny of the Triumvirs duringthe massacres of 42. Appian’s accounts of Triumviral terror (BC 4.16–51)and references scattered throughout Imperial literature uniformlycommend such women and pour vituperation upon those who assistedthe soldiers even though they were technically upholding the law.6 Theliterature portrays hard-bitten soldiers backing away or even withering withshame when faced with women who put decency and loyalty to theirfamilies ahead of their own safely.7 Tales of bravery were not merely aliterary convention. The courage of many women really had been effectivein mitigating the horror. TheLaudatio ‘Turiae’ (CIL 6.1527), a contemporarytext, provides one ‘real life’ example of this phenomenon. It also expressesthe respect which one man felt for the woman who had saved his life.

Such stories demonstrate that some women, especially through theircommand of considerable financial resources, could assist the opponentsof the Triumvirs in quite a substantial way and survive the process.8 Andit was not for the first time. A passage from Appian indicates that they hadacted in a similar fashion when Marius and his supporters were exiled in theeighties.9 Even the ‘bad’ women, then and later, are depicted as activelydeciding whether to use the opportunity of the chaos to change husbandsor make even more money than they already had.10 This kind of materialshould make us wary of assuming that Rome’s elite women werepassive onlookers simply because they could not take part in the politicalprocess. On the contrary, they formed a constituency which any politicalleader looking to create a new social and political order did well to watch.

Appian’s account of Hortensia and the women who invaded the Forumin 42 to protest against a forced contribution to the Triumviral war chest

Kathryn Welch

312


provides another example of the same phenomenon (App. BC 4.32–33).The difference, however, lies in the fact that in this case the women werebent on protecting their own interests. Also to be noted is the attitude ofthe people who reacted to Hortensia’s appeal with profound sympathy.The crowd defended the women from the Triumvirs’ lictors and ensuredthat they went home unharmed.11 It took only twenty-four hours for thelist of contributors to be cut from 1400 to 400. Whether protecting theirfamilies or their fortunes, the women of Rome are depicted as moreeffective than men and are consistently commended for their efforts.

There is even a chance that Appian’s rendition of Hortensia’s speechon that occasion reflects something of what she actually said.12 Her argumentcan be summarised as follows: women don’t do politics or cause wars sothey should not have to pay for either except in the direst circumstances;women have no other way to establish their proper social status except bytheir ownership of property and so it is inherently wrong to strip them ofit; women don’t vote to make people public enemies or assassinate dictators,even though they might be related to those that do, so they should not betreated as hostile; if the state were truly in danger, women would certainlycontribute to a war effort, but civil war was not their concern. If thismessage in any way reflects the view of Hortensia and her friends, andcommon sense suggests that it did, they were indeed concerned about theoutcome of the war and the fundamental requirements of iustitia and pietas.13

In order to understand the full force of Livia’s career, however, it isimportant to notice other aspects of the account. Embedded in Appian’sstory is an indication of what should have happened and, in my view, whatoften happened. When ‘women’s business’ arose, the matrons as a groupcould approach the females of a leading man’s household to ask forrepresentation. Scholars have called this mothers’ network the conventusmatronalis or the ordo matronarum, though both are informal titles.14 It isprobably better to use Livy’s preferred term, the Matres, to describethis orderly collective. Relative dignitas within it appears to have beendetermined by several factors, such as birth, illustrious male relatives and,most significantly, the level reached on the cursus by the matron’s husband.This status was retained after the death or divorce of the husband, thusensuring that although one’s place was gained through a male connectionit became something each woman kept as her own (Purcell 1986, 82).When the women of Rome sought help from their leaders’ wives, therewas an expectation that they would receive it, despite any politicaldifferences between the men themselves.15 The appeal of the women toother women appears to have been the way Roman women did things andwe can only assume that it was frequently effective.16


313


Hortensia, daughter of the consul of 69 and sister of a proconsul, wouldhave been one of the oldest and most prestigious members of the Matresof late republican Rome. Octavia would have joined its highest ranks whenC. Marcellus, whom she married in about 55, became consul in 50. At thetime of her flight, Livia would have been junior in rank but she qualifiedfor membership through her impressive family connections and herhusband’s praetorian rank (Vell. 2.75.1). In 42, Fulvia and Julia, respectivelyAntonius’ wife and mother, as well as Octavia, would have been among itsprincipes. The angry women approached these three ladies to make theirprotest. Appian tells us that Julia and Octavia would have helped but Fulviawithheld her support. Only after she had turned them away did they takemore direct action (BC 4.32).

The Matres of the Triumviral period, therefore, had a mode oforganisation and more than one stake in the outcome of the struggle. Theirgender offered them relative immunity and enabled them to pour openshame and contempt upon a hated, untraditional government. During theconflict and after, the perpetrators of the chaos needed to mollify and thenwin over a group which was incensed at the destruction of families andthe risk the civil war posed to financial stability. Two possible strategiesfor achieving these aims can be discerned in our literature: one is rhetorical,the other practical. Livia is connected to both.

Fortuna Muliebris: women as the saviours of the stateThat the poets and historians of the age saw moral failings as a causeof Rome’s woes is a well known trope (Severy 2003, 43). Women,as the ‘weaker’ element in the Roman moral hierarchy, received acorrespondingly larger share of the blame. Such themes, while significant,were not designed to win the good opinion of the already disgruntledMatres. For them, a positive message was needed. They needed to betold that they had a unique role to play in reviving the fortunes of theres publica.

It cannot be any accident that the Augustan historians Livy andDionysius of Halicarnassus included several examples of strong, vocalmothers in their works. Such women, moreover, are not always condemnedfor their temerity. Just as often they are praised for their wisdom andtemperance. As individuals and as a group, the ‘mothers’ network’17 isespecially present in Livy’s text. For each of their substantial contributionsthey were rewarded with specific privileges.18 Describing their contributionto the offering at Delphi, Livy suggests the extent to which these decisionswere made by the women themselves.

Kathryn Welch

314


Matronae coetibus ad eam rem consultandam habitis communi decretopollicitae tribunis militum aurum...

The matrons held meetings to consider the need and binding themselves bya common resolution to supply the military tribunes with gold... (5.25.8)

This initiative, far from attracting opprobrium, was immensely pleasing tothe Senate.19 Livy’s attitude to women reflects the same moral messagesembedded in Appian’s proscription stories: when women act against theirfamilies or seek power to do harm, they are condemned, as the royal Tulliawas (Liv. 1.46–8). When they actively seek to assist the state or when theyhelped each other as well as their families (so long as the desired outcomewas not detrimental to the state or morality), they are wholeheartedlypraised. In either case, Livy’s Matres are rarely silent.20

Both Livy and his younger contemporary, Dionysius, present the storyof Veturia who, in the company of the assembled Matres and their children,reversed the fortunes of Rome by demanding that her son Coriolanus ceasehis all-too-successful attacks upon it.21 Livy (2.40) tells the story crisply andbriefly. His Veturia was not to be argued with. Dionysius (RA 8.39–62)dedicates twenty-three chapters to the event and includes several setspeeches. The rhetoric and its moral were far more relevant to the womenof Dionysius’ own day than to any legendary past.

In Dionysius’ hands, Veturia is a woman who sets aside the interests ofher justifiably angry son in order to bring about peace with honour betweenRome and the Volsci. Her indispensable ally is Valeria Publicola, who playsthe ‘Hortensian’ role of speaking to and for the assembled women.22

Coriolanus and the Volsci are unstoppable; as they approach, the womenleave their houses and go to all the temples to pray to the gods forsalvation.23 Valeria takes the opportunity to gather the women togetherand to plan their strategy (RA 8.39.1). Inspired by the gods and her owncommon sense, she informs them that they can save the city, not byweapons but by friendly feeling (eunoia), reason (logos), reinforced bydivinely inspired persuasion ( peitho) and grace (charis).

Valeria’s sentiments are significantly concordant with those of Hortensia.In her speech to Veturia, she argues that women had not insulted andexiled Coriolanus but they were about to suffer anyway unless a way couldbe found to stop him. She reminds Veturia of their common interests, theirshared cultic experiences and their universal predicament. Finally, she asksVeturia to place the interests of her fellow women ahead of those of herkin. And eventually Veturia agrees. In the final part of her speech Valeriabegs Veturia to step outside her kinship network and to put the city first(RA 8.40.3–5). She emphasises Veturia’s materna auctoritas which, along


315


with Coriolanus’ virtues, would guarantee a positive response. However,she adds another significant element: the crisis presented an opportunityfor women to forge what every epic man had always sought, namely animperishable reputation for virtue (kleos arete-s athanaton).

καλὸς ὁ κίνδυνος, ὦ Οὐετουρία, τὸν υἱὸν κοµίσασθαι, ἐλευθερῶσαι τὴν πατρίδα,

σῶσαι τὰς ἑαυτῆς πολίτιδας, κλέος ἀρετῆς ἀθάνατον τοῖς ἐσοµένοις καταλιπεῖν.

It is a glorious venture, Veturia, to recover your son, to free your nativeland, to save your countrywomen and to leave for posterity an imperishablereputation for virtue. (RA 8.40.5)

Such a reputation was not only possible for Veturia. All women whoembraced the cause of peace would share the glory.

καταγαγοῦσα δὲ τὸν υἱὸν εἰς τὴν πόλιν αὐτή τ’ ἀθάνατον ἕξεις κλέος ὥσπερ εἰκὸς ἐκ

τηλικούτου κινδύνου καὶ φόβου ῥυσαµένη τὴν πατρίδα, καὶ ἡµῖν τιµῆς τινος αἰτία

παρὰ τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἔσῃ, ὅτι τὸν οὐ δυνηθέντα ὑπ’ ἐκείνων διασκεδασθῆναι πόλεµον

αὐταὶ διελύσαµεν.

And when you have brought your son back to Rome, not only will youyourself most likely gain immortal glory for having rescued your countryfrom so great a danger and terror but you will be the cause to us also ofsome honour in the eyes of our husbands for having ourselves put an endto the war which they had been unable to stop. (RA 8.40.4)

Women, suggests Valeria, could stop the war where men could not if theyagreed to work together and put the city before their individual familyinterests (which were also served by the group action as everyone would besaved). As if the argument for glory was not enough, Valeria consciouslylinks this female intervention with that of the legendary Sabine womenwho stopped their husbands from fighting their fathers and brothers.

ἐκείνων τ’ ἀληθῶς ἔγγονοι τῶν γυναικῶν φανησόµεθα, αἳ τὸν συστάντα Ῥωµύλῳ

πρὸς Σαβίνους πόλεµον αὐταὶ πρεσβευσάµεναι διελύσαντο καὶ συναγαγοῦσαι τούς θ’

ἡγεµόνας καὶ τὰ ἔθνη µεγάλην ἐκ µικρᾶς ἐποίησαν τὴν πόλιν.

...and we shall show ourselves to be the true descendants of those womenwho by their own intercession put an end to the war that had arisen betweenRomulus and the Sabines and by bringing together both the commandersand the nations made this city great from a small beginning. (RA 8.40.4)

Dionysius’ women have not just saved the city: without their intervention,the whole future of Rome, including its empire, would have been snuffedout at birth (RA 8.1.1).24 The women, therefore, become agents in thedelivery of what was for Dionysius Rome’s manifest destiny, its promisedFortuna. Men won new territory by warfare but these women had preservedthe very centre and heart of its being which men were at the point of

Kathryn Welch

316


destroying. The cult which preserved thememory of this female interventioninto history was none other than Fortuna Muliebris.25 Although linked withwomen and marriage (and especially the cult of the univira), the foundationstory of the cult, at least as we find it in Augustan and later authors,connects these Matres to the destiny of Rome. Moreover, Fortuna herselfwas alleged to have voiced her commendation of the women’s actions(Plut. Cor. 38.1).

Dionysius extends the rhetoric of women as peacemakers and saviours.The message would have resonated loudly in civil war and post-civil warRome. However, it was not a comfortable message for the Triumvirs or forCaesar in his later Augustan manifestation. They were the villains of thepiece and the women, through their allegiance to traditional Roman values,were the heroines. Indeed it is very possible that Pompeius’ old friendMarcus Terentius Varro, who had been saved from certain death himself,had a hand in providing material for Dionysius to develop. Someone atthe time thought it worthwhile to cast Mucia, the mother of SextusPompeius, in the role of a latter-day Veturia when she lent her voice tothose clamouring for peace to be struck in 39.26 ‘Good’ women in thisperiod were connected to opponents of the Triumvirs; ‘bad’ women hadassisted them in the slaughter (App. BC 4.23–24). The exceptions to thisgeneral rule were Octavia and Julia, who had wanted to assist Hortensia’sfriends in 42. However, the form their ‘goodness’ took was assistance tothe victims, which did nothing for the Triumvirs’ reputations. A recruitfrom among the ranks of hostile women was needed to advertise a changeof heart and a change of fortune.

Three chapters after Velleius introduces Livia and the vicissitudes of herlife, he shows how her life has dramatically changed (Vell. 2.79). She andher first husband Tiberius Nero had returned to Rome as a result of theamnesty of 39 and she had then married her former pursuer at thebeginning of 38.27 Instead of presenting the marriage as an item in its ownright, Velleius inserts it into an account of young Caesar’s worst moments:his nightmare struggle with Sextus Pompeius which lasted from 38 until thebattle of Naulochus in September 36. Defying chronology, Velleiuscondenses this three year-period into one confused chapter (2.79),ascribing Caesar’s defeats not to any expertise or management on thepart of his opponent but to the fact that Fortuna had chosen to deserthim (2.79.3). Eventually, however, Caesar is revealed as the man whocould overcome the contrary goddess by his virtus, and even ‘correct’her judgement (2.79.5; Woodman 1983, 202). While the storm, thecampaign and the battles at sea clash together, Velleius reports Livia’srecent wedding.


317


Hac classi Caesar, cum prius despondente ei Nerone (cui ante nupta fuerat)Liviam auspicatis rei publicae ominibus duxisset eam uxorem, PompeioSiciliaeque bellum intulit; sed virum humana ope invictum graviter eo temporeFortuna concussit. quippe longe maiorem partem classis circa VeliamPalinurique promontorium adorta vis Africi laceravit ac distulit.

With this fleet, Caesar waged war against Pompeius and Sicily. He hadmarried Livia, with happy omens for the res publica, after Nero (to whomshe had previously been married) had pledged her to him. But at that timeFortuna dealt the man, unconquered by human efforts, a heavy blow. Fora violent south-west wind wrecked and scattered by far the greater part ofthe fleet close to Velia and the promontory of Palinurus. (2.79.2–3)

In Velleius’ mind, Livia’s second marriage was an honourable contractbetween two former enemies.28 Of the scandals mentioned by other authorsthere is no trace.29 In another neat ablative absolute (despondente ei Nerone),he implies that Livia is the pignus entrusted by her former husband into thecare of her present one to seal a bargain. Moreover, the deal is not just forthe good of private individuals; it augurs well for the state. Of course, theomen shuts out Sextus Pompeius in a specific way, but offers the messagethat everyone else is welcome.30 By jamming the marriage into an accountof the war in Sicily (and grammatically into the heart of his densely packedsentence), Velleius pre-emptively promises an enduring change of fortune,guaranteed by his marriage, to the embattled new bridegroom and the state.

The exact omen to which Velleius alludes is known to us from Pliny.31

During the time of her betrothal to Caesar, that is, the months between theSpring of 39 and the marriage on 11 January 38, an eagle was reported tohave dropped a white hen bearing a laurel branch on Livia’s lap as she wasreturning to her property near the ninth milestone of the Via Flaminia, theso-called Prima Porta villa famous today for its garden fresco and the statueof Augustus which was recovered from it. At the time, according to Pliny,the augurs ordered that the branch of laurel should be planted. It struck,producing a healthy tree, and then a grove, the laurel from which providedall imperial wreaths thereafter until Nero’s death.32 The omen signifiedHeaven’s approval of the marriage and marked Livia’s own role asharbinger of success. Velleius’ account suggests that it also served to linkher even more closely to that change of fortune which Rome (and Caesarhimself ) so badly needed.

Although the evidence is not absolutely secure, it is highly likely that atsome stage Livia restored the Temple of Fortuna Muliebris, the monumentwhich commemorated the actions of Valeria and Veturia.33 If this is thecase, we can observe a concerted effort to connect Livia to the womenwho had reversed the evil fortune Rome would have faced at the hands of

Kathryn Welch

318


an angry Coriolanus. The inscription upon which the connection is basedrecords Livia’s efforts as well as repairs carried out by Julia Domna andthe Severan emperors.34 There is one remarkable difference in the wayLivia and Julia Domna are commemorated (Gorrie 2004, 71). Julia Domnais listed as one member of the whole imperial house. Livia, ‘[D]rusi f uxsor[Caesaris Augusti]’ (‘daughter of Drusus wife of Caesar Augustus’) acts onher own but her filiation subtly reminds the viewer of her connection toboth sides of the civil war. Such associations suggest the same imageVelleius presents of Livia as the living embodiment of provident Fortuna.35

She stood between the two camps and could speak to all. Moreover,through her sponsorship of Roman matronal cults, and this cult above all,she could spread the necessary message of inclusion directly to Rome’smothers in a way that no male could ever do.

Livia as Pignus Concordiae?Although it is less explicit, Velleius also demonstrates an awarenessof another contemporary rhetorical strategy which was closely connectedto Livia. This strategy figured women as the agents, real and potential,of Concordia, Fortuna’s companion. He poignantly configures the deathof Julia the daughter of the elder Caesar as the loss of the pignus concordiaebetween her father and her husband, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.

Quinto ferme anno36 Caesar morabatur in Galliis cum medium iam exinvidia po<te>ntiae ta<m> male cohaerentis inter Cn. Pompeium etC. Caesarem concordiae pignus, Iulia, uxor Magni, decessit; atque omniainter destinatos tanto discrimini duces dirimente Fortuna filius quoqueparvus Pompei, Iulia natus, intra breve spatium obiit.

About the fifth year Caesar was in Gaul, Julia, the wife of Magnus, died.She was the guarantee of concord between Pompeius and Caesar which wasalready holding together so badly through jealousy of each other’s power;and as though Fortuna was determined to break all bonds between the twocommanders destined for such great conflicts, Pompeius’ small son born ofJulia died a short time later. (Vell. 2.47.2)

In contrast to Livia, whose life story signifies a positive reversal of Fortuneleading to Concordia, Velleius ascribes Julia’s death to a determination byFortuna to shut Concordia out. The theme of Julia as a lost guarantee ofconcord is also found in Lucan (BC 1.111), suggesting that these authorsemployed the same well-known trope.

Failed concordia suits the mood of those about to describe the outbreakof civil war. It was even more common to stress the success of women inachieving the settlement of disputes. When Livy relates the episode of theintervention of the captured Sabine women in the ensuing war between


319


their fathers and husbands, he configures them as the special agents ofConcordia.37 In opening his second book (the very beginning of the RomanRepublic), he designates wives and children as vital elements in a free civitasbecause they, along with devotion to a specific place (caritas soli ), eliminatethe need for a king. They are the pignora (guarantees) of peace (2.1.4–5). Theway in which Velleius and Lucan conceptualise Julia (Caesaris filia) stronglysuggests that Livy had previously depicted her as a might-have-beenSabine.38 We can observe another example of the same idea: Plutarch andDio present Octavia as actively trying to maintain harmony between herbrother and husband. She achieved temporary success at Tarentum butwas unable to prevent the two men from fighting each other in the late30s.39 Her ultimate failure took nothing away from the rhetorical force ofthe theme as it was made to show (and the message was of immense valueto her brother) that Antonius had placed himself beyond a salvation sograciously presented.

Velleius’ Livia is not only the embodiment of changed Fortune. Throughher ability to bind the past to the present and former opponents to thecurrent leader of Roman politics, she is an agent of civic harmony.Interestingly, she was the second wife the younger Caesar found among theranks of his opponents. He had married Scribonia in order to forge apathway to negotiations with Sextus Pompeius. Finding Scribonia (or,perhaps, Pompeius) too assertive, he found a more gracious candidatewhose male connections were also more compliant.40 Syme and Floryrecognise the many men connected to Livia who would potentially bebrought into the ambit of her new husband through their marriage.41 Theydo not consider the fact that Livia was also in a position to spread themessage to women that they could follow her lead and would be honouredfor doing so. On her marriage to Caesar she would have become a leaderand then princeps of the Matres. Octavia, as the wife of Antonius and thesister of Caesar, was already prominent and had undoubtedly done her bestto convince the matrons of the excellence of her brother. Moreover, atsome point (almost certainly early), she had been rhetorically connectedto the discourse of Woman as State Peacemaker.42 Livia, however, hadbeen among those forced into flight with her child; her proscribed fatherhad perished in a noble cause. Important as Octavia was to the mix, she hadnever been the young Caesar’s opponent. Far from it. Livia, on the otherhand, as a former enemy now raised to the highest place to which a womancould aspire, was a living testament to the value of accepting the hand offriendship.

In an evocative poetic moment, Horace (Odes 3.14) provides a fleetingglimpse of the Matres at a public event.43 The poem, which has far more

Kathryn Welch

320


to do with the settlement of civil war and the unity of Italy than thehomecoming of Caesar Augustus from Spain, describes the two women atthe head of the column as they process to greet the victorious CaesarAugustus returning from Spain.44 It is a slender indication but an importantone. In such a highly gendered society, convention will have determinedthat both women spent a great deal of time with these women. Theirnetworking could even be combined with creating the odd display garment(Suet. Aug. 73). We should not devalue this activity by suggesting that itentailed dealing ‘only’ with women. Persuading mothers that they wereheld in honour by the regime and binding them in friendship to theImperial house meant the extension of the message into every householdthat counted.

The building activity of Livia and Octavia reflects their relationship toother women and concord is at its heart.45 Octavia’s complex in the lowerCampus Martius was an early intervention which gave prominence tofamous Roman women of the past (Hemelrijk 2005, 312–4). As well as thededications we have noted, Livia built a shrine to Concordia within herporticus on the Esquiline and opened it in 7.46 Ovid (Fasti 6.637) tells us thatshe furnished it for her dear husband (caro praestitit ipsa viro). In my ownview, Ovid’s use of praesto indicates that Livia’s ‘gift’ was ‘to the advantageof ’ Augustus, implying that she meant the building to play a parallel rolein promoting the ‘Augustan’ moral message, not that she actually handedit over to him.47 Ovid’s reference to the carus vir has been taken to mean thatthe shrine celebrated only that concord associated with harmoniousmarriage and not the Concordia of political slogans.48 One wonders howsuch a powerful (and omni-present) association could be kept separate ina post-civil-war society. Harmonious marriage, as we have seen, had alreadybecome connected to the reconstruction of the state because of itspotential to be a binding force. The shrine’s dies natalis was 11 June, thedate of the Matralia, a festival which affirmed a woman’s place as mistressof the house but also which expected her duties to extend to the care of hersisters’ children as well as her own (Takács 2008, 49–50). Ovid (Fasti6.473–648) also celebrates the cult of Fortuna traditionally instituted byServius. He places women, good and bad, at the centre of the cult byrecalling Servius’ murder by his wicked daughter Tullia on the one hand(Fasti 5.585–620) and Tanaquil’s decisive action which brought aboutServius’ conception on the other (Fasti 6.624–36). The matrons arerequested to respect Servius’ draped statue and to intone the solemn rituals,suggesting that this ceremony also belonged to them. The calendar of theday finishes with the commemoration of Livia’s Concordia shrine.49

Concordia is thus part of a suite of activities all involving women.


321


Earlier in the book, Ovid allows Concordia to settle a dispute amongthe goddesses as to the origins of the month’s name (Fasti 6.89–100). Themonth of June, she says, took its title from neither Juno nor Juventis butfrom iungo, the verb to bind, an idea which recalls the fusion of two peoples,Roman and Sabine, which the women’s intervention had made possible.50

By juxtaposing Fasti 6.93–94, with 6.6.636–48, Ovid connects Livia’s shrineto Concordia on the Esquiline with the Roman woman’s role as theguarantor of a stable civitas (provided, of course, that they are bonae matronaeand abhor the example of the evil Tullia). Such a view does not at allpreclude the shrine becoming a haven for women who sought divineassistance for a fractured household or an unhappy marriage. It makessense that a woman’s role as the guardian of concordia within her householdeventually supplanted the rhetorical configuration of woman as healer ofthe community once the memory of a traumatic civil war became moredistant.

Ovid’s June Concordia has another function. Adorned with Apollo’slaurels, she prevents anger from overwhelming pietas.

...et in litem studio certaminis issentatque ira pietas dissimulata foret:venit Apollinea longas Concordia lauronexa comas, placidi numen opusque ducis.

...and in the heat of rivalry the goddesses might have engaged in a dispute,wherein pietas might have been obscured by anger. But Concord arrived, atonce the spirit and the task of a tranquil general, her long tresses twinedwith Apollo’s laurel. (Fasti 6.91–2)

The passage connects several Augustan themes. Concordia, a femalewarrior for peace crowned by Apolline laurel, grants space to pietas by apeaceful compromise Pietas was one of the most contested virtues of thecivil war (Powell 2008, 31–85). If this passage is meant to govern thededication of Livia’s shrine, as I believe it must, it suggests a deeply politicalmotive behind the choice of goddess and the involvement of the Matres.51

The porticus enhanced Livia’s own prestige within the context of Tiberius’triumph in 7 which coincided with its completion.52 Hermode of celebrationwas to hold a dinner party for the women of Rome so that they too couldobserve and take pride in the public honour which now openly accrued tothe mother of a Triumphator (Dio 55.8.2). Velleius himself reflects thestrategy of ‘associated glory’ for Livia which, incidentally, also kept alive(and even celebrated anew) her history as former opponent, now friendand ally. In introducing Tiberius’ quaestorship in 15, when maternalinfluence should have been a distant memory, Velleius designates the

Kathryn Welch

322


young man as the son of Livia, herself the daughter of Drusus Claudianusand former wife of Ti. Claudius Nero.53 Soon after, he calls again uponLivia to add lustre to her younger son Drusus. Though others sniffedscandal in the fact, Velleius celebrates, once again, the transferral of Livia,while pregnant with her first husband’s child, to the house of the youngerCaesar.

Fratre ipsius Druso Claudio quem intra Caesaris penates enixa erat Livia:

His own brother Drusus Claudius to whom Livia gave birth in the house ofCaesar... (2.95.1)

There is a triumphalism and pride embedded not only in reference to Liviabut in the equally ubiquitous presence of the Claudian and Livian heritageof these two young men.54 The description of Tiberius’ quaestorship beginsan essay which continues down to his adoption into the house of theCaesars at 2.103. Within this section, the military achievements andqualifications of Livia’s son to be the next princeps are contrasted with theless than glorious resumé of Gaius Caesar and the disgrace of a verydifferent mother (2.100–1). Velleius trenchantly exonerates Tiberius and,by extension, his mother and commendatrix, from the charge of fomentingfamily discord, in the first place between the descendants of Scribonia andin the second among the children of Agrippina. He is aware of the rivalclaims of Scribonia’s descendants but refuses to admit them; the fault (andlack of talent) was all on their side.55 Livia and her sons, he reminds us,aspired to concord, not discord. On the other hand, Julia and her friendsturned their backs on the princeps’ mercy and the peace of the present age.Fortuna preserves Roman concord, on this occasion by removing theunsuitable Gaius from the path of the eminently qualified Tiberius (2.103).There is, of course, no suggestion from Velleius that Livia might haveassisted this useful and ubiquitous goddess. The essay finishes with thesalutary effect created by Tiberius’ adoption on the general moral andmaterial environment of the City and the Empire.

Livia’s influence did not stop with women in Rome. The correspon-dence between her porticus and that of Eumachia’s building in Pompeii hasbeen noted by scholarship.56 Less famously, Mineia of Paestum endowedher city with an upgraded basilica and a Temple to Mens Bona (‘GoodCounsel’).57 This cult links Mineia to the heroine of the so-called LaudatioTuriae,58 the legendary Valeria Publicola of Dionysius and the Livia of thepages of Dio and Suetonius (Treggiari 2005, 142). The network of femalerelationships extended also beyond the shores of Italy. Josephus (AJ 17.7)reveals connections between Livia and Octavia with the royal women ofthe Levant, especially Judaea (Barrett 2002, 195–9). Kearsley (2005) has


323


demonstrated the effectiveness of female networks in Asia Minor. Thethreads, when we start to join them up, demonstrate a consistent pattern:the Augustan project, in great part by encouraging the rhetoric of womanas agent of civic health, used women to bring other women into the foldand keep them there.

In opening his history of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, Tacitus asked whowas around at the time of Caesar Augustus’ death who still remembered thefree res publica (Ann. 1.3). There were, perhaps, very few men able to doso. However we can name at least two women. The first is Junia Tertullawho lived on for over sixty years after the battle of Philippi in seeminglypeaceful co-existence with the new order. Tacitus’ description of herfuneral suggests that she and those who observed her state funeral hadlong memories (Tac. Ann. 3.76). The second is Livia herself. She had herown reasons for remembering the date of the last encounter at Philippi: itwas the anniversary of the death of her father.59 The good opinion of suchwomen was surely of great value in reconstructing a traumatised society.In our quest for examples of intervention, successful or otherwise, ofwomen into the ‘male’ sphere, we have perhaps undervalued theimportance to the novus status of the world of women in its own right.

Salus Augusta: Livia and the wider worldThe adoption of Tiberius in AD 4 placed a new focus on Livia which hadalready been noted by scholars in the past and was recently confirmed bythe discovery of the senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre.60 By this stage,Livia’s probity (at least publicly) was unquestioned, her wealth enormous,her generosity famous.61 The speech Dio gives her in Book 55 owes a greatdeal to Seneca’s de Clementia but it also reflects contemporary publicrepresentations of Livia which were popular in her lifetime.62 The Livia ofthe later period is the Livia we know best. Velleius himself, the anonymousconsolatio ad Liviam and the newly discovered senatus consultum refer to hermoderation and probity in dispensing favours and refusal to use heracknowledged power to harm.63

The elder Pliny (NH 14.1) informs us that the colonnade of Livia’sporticus was shaded by a single grapevine, still alive and still able to produceup to twelve amphorae of wine a year in his day. Livia was in full controlof the symbolic language of the day, of which plants were a rich and visiblepart.64 The grapevine almost certainly meant something beyond pleasantshade and a supply of wine. A link between the grapevine and Concordia,the central message of the building, is distinctly possible but a third ‘Livian’concept, salus might also be in play. Salus combines health, longevity and thestability only possible in a peaceful ordered state. Once again, the symbol

Kathryn Welch

324


can be extended to Livia herself who reputedly ascribed her continuedgood health and advanced years to the custom of imbibing a moderate butconstant supply of red wine.65

In his last reference to her, Velleius recognises the status Livia enjoyedat the end of her life. She has become Julia Augusta, the Romana princepswho was prefigured in his introduction. In listing the woes of the emperorat the time of the work’s completion, he makes the death of Livia thesupreme disaster in a list of calamities which had afflicted Tiberius in recentyears.

Cuius temporis aegritudinem auxit amissa mater eminentissima et per omniadeis quam hominibus similior femina, cuius potentiam nemo sensit nisi autlevatione periculi aut accessione dignitatis.

His sorrow at this time was crowned by the loss of his outstanding mother,a woman who in all things resembled the gods more than mankind, whosepower no one felt except in relief from danger or in promotion of rank.(2.130.5)

For the second time, Velleius describes Livia as eminentissima. However,this time the distinction is not restricted to her respective place in thehierarchy of women.66 By the time of her death, Livia had become a trulypublic figure whose reach extended throughout the empire, even thoughshe continued to assist her female friends when they needed her.67 In hisobituary, Velleius recognises Livia’s promotion which, in his view, couldonly mean that she had a broader opportunity to achieve good outcomes.

Livia had a particular role to play as ambassador for the Augustanmessage, in the first place to those women who, like her, had been on thewrong side, and in the second as a leader of all who chose to participate inthe Augustan project. Velleius preserves some of the earliest evidence wehave for how the heroism of Roman women, overwhelmingly associatedwith the opponents of the Triumvirs, was appropriated by Livia’s secondhusband. Correspondingly, our author’s famous slur on Fulvia reflects thereverse image in quite a specific way. Instead of playing the role of aVeturia, a Valeria or a Sabine, Fulvia donned a sword and took an activepart in war on behalf of her husband and to the cost of the broadercommunity. Only Caesar Augustus himself openly suggested that Fulviawas a bad wife (Martial 11.20; Welch 1995, 185). However, her capacityfor warfare turned her into a non-woman. Real (Roman) women (therhetoric proposed) promoted peace and concord. They stuck together forthe ultimate good of the community. And, once they had seen the light,they were welcome in the brave new world of Augustan Rome whetherthey had been friend or foe in the past.


325


Velleius’ enthusiastic portrait of Livia, once we place it in its context,offers an invaluable indication of something which helps to explain theeventual success of the Augustan era. Through her association with threepowerful civic goddesses, Fortuna, Concordia and Salus, who had all beenmissing in action throughout the years of civil war, Livia representedresolution to past conflicts and hope for a better future. In particular, thisrhetoric carried a message to the matrons of Augustan Rome that if theyfollowed her lead they would be welcome and honoured in the novus status.The future welfare of the state was, at least in part, made dependent ontheir eunoia and logos as it had been in the past. Velleius’ panegyric drawsupon this wider discourse and alerts us to an important method by whichthe principes, husband and wife, extended their influence throughout thewhole of Roman society and the empire beyond.

AcknowledgementsOn the occasion of the paper’s original presentation, the comments ofEllen O’Gorman, C. B. R. Pelling and T. P. Wiseman, among many others,assisted me greatly in rethinking some aspects of the original argument andprovided great encouragement. Since then, many friends and allies havecontributed in no small way to its development, including (in alphabeticalorder!) James Buckman, Bronwyn Hopwood, Julia Kindt, Maxine Lewis,Liam McGowan, Kit Morrell, Victoria Pagán, Roger Pitcher, Paul Roche,Clemence Schultze, Andrew Stiles and Fiona Tweedie. I thank them alland note that all remaining errors, infelicities and misconceptions are myown.

I would also like to acknowledge the financial assistance of the Universityof Sydney and the University of Leicester which enabled me to take partin the conference from which this book emerged. Finally, Eleanor Cowan’spatience was severely tried by the length of time it took me to finalise thepaper but she remained gracious and helpful throughout the process.

———————————All dates are BC unless noted. Texts are taken from the BibliothecaTeubneriana Latina (Latin) and the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (Greek) exceptfor that of Velleius where I have followed Woodman. Translations arefrom Loeb editions (adapted where necessary) or my own, with someassistance from Woodman’s notes.

Kathryn Welch

326


Notes1 At 2.76.2 Velleius indicates that the young Caesar permitted Fulvia to leave. She

was escorted by the ‘unmanly’ L. Munatius Plancus, thus investing her departure withnone of the courage he acknowledges in the case of Livia: Woodman 1983, 186;Elefante 1996, 151; Wright 2002, 181.

2 Woodman (1983, 182) calls his commentary on this section ‘CampanianConnections’.

3 Valerius Maximus (6.9) offers a very different set of examples of mutatio fortunae.He is interested only in the clari viri. Not so Velleius.

4 E.g. Severy 2003, 43; Barrett 2002, 28.5 Lobur 2008, 75; 96; Welch 2009, 198. The point is rarely noted, possibly because

Appian does not include Livia’s story in his extensive treatment of the Perusine War.Milnor refers to Velleius’ comments on women without referring to his treatmentof Livia (2005, 194–197). Livia is completely absent from her otherwise excellentdiscussion of women and Triumviral literature.

6 Vell. 2.67.1; Val. Max. 6.7.2–3; Dio 47.3–17; 48.15; Elefante 1996, 137; Treggiari2005, 139; Milnor 2005, 194–196; Osgood 2006a, 62–82. For the edict, App. BC4.8–11; Osgood 2006a, 64.

7 As Osgood comments in the context of his discussion of Hortensia’s intervention,‘It was untraditional for a woman to protest in public; now only a woman could getaway with it’ (2006a, 87).

8 ‘App. BC 4.39–40; Turia’ and her jewellery: LT 2.1–60. The shared experience:Hemelrijk 2006, 189–90; Treggiari 2005, 139–140; Osgood 2006a, 62–82. One shouldnote that on the other side Fulvia was also involved in high finance and it is usuallythought that she assisted her husband Antonius with her considerable wealth (Nep.Att. 9.2–5; Babcock 1965, 7–13).

9 App. BC 1.63: οἱ δὲ τῶν ἐξελαθέντων στασιῶται, ὅσοι τῶν πλουσίων, καὶ γύναιαπολλὰ πολυχρήµατα, τοῦ δέους τῶν ὅπλων ἀναπνεύσαντες ἠρεθίζοντο ὑπὲρ καθόδου τῶνδετῶν ἀνδρῶν καὶ οὐδὲν σπουδῆς ἢ δαπάνης ἐς τοῦτο ἀπέλειπον, ἐπιβουλεύοντες καὶ τοῖς τῶνὑπάτων σώµασιν ὡς οὐκ ἐνὸν τῶνδε περιόντων ἐκείνοις κατελθεῖν. (‘The supporters ofthe banished faction, especially the rich, and many wealthy women, who now founda respite from the terror of arms, bestirred themselves for the return of the exiles.They spared neither pains nor expense to this end, even conspiring against the personsof the consuls, since they thought they could not secure the recall of their friendswhile the consuls survived’). One should also note the flight of Metella, wife ofL. Cornelius Sulla, and her twins as a parallel to the women of the Triumviral period(Plut. Sull. 22).

10 In the Sullan/Marian civil war Sulla’s daughter Cornelia had made a fortunebecause of her access to confiscated property (Plut. Mar. 34.2) and was not abovewithholding his inheritance from her son Q. Pompeius Rufus (Val. Max. 4.2.7).Servilia, M. Brutus’ mother, allegedly acquired confiscated property through herfriendship with Caesar (Att. 14.21[375].3; Suet. Iul. 50.2).

11 App. BC 4.34; Purcell 1986, 81; Powell 2008, 55–75. Gowing makes the pointthat Lepidus could be made to look very bad indeed because of his treatment of ‘Turia’(1992, 283–296).

12 Quint. Inst. 1.1.6; Purcell 1986, 81–2; Hopwood 2004, 23–26; Osgood 2006a, 85.


327


13 For the place of female wealth and immorality within the ‘rhetoric of empire’and utilitas, see Hopwood 2004, 129–156, esp. 141–156.

14 Purcell 1986, 82–4; Gorrie 2004, 71. Gagé (1963, 100–153), Purcell (1986, 87) andHemelrijk (1999, 12–16) use the term ordo matronarum. The term is used once in Latinliterature: in relating the intervention of Hortensia, Valerius Maximus says (8.3.3):Hortensia vero Q. Hortensi filia, cum ordo matronarum gravi tributo a triumviris esset oneratus necquisquam virorum patrocinium eis accommodare auderet, causam feminarum apud triumviros etconstanter et feliciter egit: repraesentata enim patris facundia impetravit ut maior pars imperataepecuniae his remitteretur. (‘Hortensia, the worthy daughter of Quintus Hortensius, whenthe women had been burdened with a heavy tax by the triumvirs and none of the mendared to argue their case for them, took up the cause of the women in a steadfast andsuccessful manner. For, matching the eloquence of her father, she argued with suchsuccess that the greater part of the required money was remitted to them’.)

15 Cicero’s charge that his enemy’s sister Clodia treated his wife Terentia very badly(Cael. 50; Treggiari 2007, 65–6) suggests, perhaps, the wider requirement for womento assist each other no matter what quarrels existed between their husbands. The socialexpectation embedded in the anecdote is revealing even if Cicero has enhancedTerentia’s pain for forensic purposes. Earlier, Cicero had contrasted Terentia’skindness as a universal patron to the torment she now suffered (Fam. 14.2[7].2),reminding us that she had had her year of glory in 63 and that her own prestige willhave suffered as a result of his exile.

16 The alternative of finding a male patron to speak for them (as Valerius Tappodid in the Oppian debate) was also a possibility but Valerius Maximus states that nota man could be found who dared to challenge the Triumviral edict (Val. Max. 8.3.3).

17 This was the project of Gagé (1963) whose work intrigued, infuriated andfrustrated reviewers, sometimes all at the same time. Gagé argued for a real butforgotten ordo lying behind the stories of Livy and Dionysius. My own view is thatthese stories project a Late Republican/Augustan reality onto a legendary world ratherthan reflect a vanished matriarchy or a cultural memory of something which haddisappeared. On the matrons and Juno Regina see Hänninen 1999, 39–52. On thecultic activities of the Matres, see Schultz (2006 passim and especially 35–37 for heridentification of the political aspects of the cult of Juno Regina) and, less usefully,Takács 2008.

18 Purcell 1986, 86. In Book 2, Livy depicts the Matres mourning L. Brutus as theywould their fathers as ultor pudicitiae violatae (2.7.4); they then mourn Valerius Publicola‘ut Brutum’ (2.16.7). In Book 3, they beseech the gods in all the temples to end thepestilence which gripped the city (3.7.8). In Book 5, we find another supplication inthe temples (5.18.11–12) and several other references to matronly intervention and itsrewards; they donate gold towards the offering to Apollo at Delphi (5.25.8–9) and arepresent in great masses at the opening of the Temple to Juno Regina (5.31.3; 5.52.10).They contribute to the ‘ransom’ of Rome from the Gauls. For this action, which savedthe sacred treasury from dishonour, they were awarded the right to a funeral oration(5.50.7). For their contribution to the Delphic offering, they are honoured with theright to drive to festivals and games in four-wheeled carriages ( pilenti ) and in twowheeled carriages (carpenti ) on feast days and ordinary days, a right the Lex Oppiasought to limit (34.1.2).

19 Livy 5.25.9; Schultz 2006, 33–37.

Kathryn Welch

328


20 The most silent female victim in Livy is the very young Verginia whose story istold in Book 3. However, Livy depicts the Matres first as her protectors and then asloudly protesting in very ‘female’ terms at her violent execution (3.47.1; 3.47.8).Speaking ‘heroines’ in Livy’s first books include Hersilia (1.11.2), the Sabines (1.13.3),Tanaquil (1.39.3; 1.41.3–5), Lucretia (1.58.7–11) and Veturia (2.40.5–9). Ovid developsHersilia even further: he turns her into another Valeria by allowing her to explain howwomen can win the war (Murgatroyd 2005, 144–147).

21 Plutarch is the only author to name the mother as Volumnia and the wife asVergilia (Plut. Cor. 33.5). All others uniformly call the mother and wife Veturia andVolumnia respectively: Liv. 2.40; Val. Max. 5.2.1; 5.4.1; Florus 1.38.12; L Ampelius27.1; de viris illustribus 19.4; App. Ital. 5.7.3; Dion.Hal. RA 8.39.4; 40.1; Dio 5.18.7 ;Zonaras 2.132.24. On the story’s history in scholarship and an emphasis on its politicalaspects, see Schultz 2006, 37–44.

22 RA 8.39–40.1. Wiseman (1998, 87–88) proposed that Valeria was created byValerius Antias so that yet another member of the gens Valeria could be inserted intohis history. If so, then she was a recent historical invention and a perfect vehicle fora contemporary Roman (if not Antias himself) to extend her rhetorical position in linewith the mood of the times.

23 Lucan suggests the same idea at 2.28–42. Purcell (1986, 84) cites other literaryexamples including the Matres of Latium.

24 Dionysius recalls the sentiment at 8.62.3 as he (finally) closes the story ofCoriolanus with a lapidary epitaph. I thank Clemence Schultze for pointing this out(and for many other insights into Dionysius’ narrative techniques).

25 RA 8.55–56, Livy 2.40.12; Plut. Cor. 37–38; Purcell 1986, 88; Barrett 2002, 205;Schultz 2006, 37–45; Takács 2008, 13–14; 22–23. The mother of Coriolanus suffersanother violation of her name when Takács calls her ‘Venturia’ twice on the one pageand in the Index (2008, 23; 193). She is Veturia in other passages (2008, 13–4; 194).

26 App. BC 5.69, 72. In a forthcoming paper I will argue that there is a highprobability that Varro promoted Mucia as a latter-day Veturia possibly in the context ofhis Pius aut de Pace. In this respect I followKatz (1985) who has offered cogent argumentsfor suggesting that Sextus Pompeius was the honorand of Varro’s logistoricus.

27 Ti. Nero and Livia returned under the terms of the Treaty of Misenum in 39(Vell. 2.77). Velleius names Nero first among the viri clarissimi who took advantage ofthe general amnesty (2.77.3).

28 The language is reminiscent of that other wife-swapping incident, the marriageof M. Porcius Cato’s wife to Q. Hortensius (Plut. Cat.Min. 25–26). In both cases, thereis the suggestion that a wife and children in common would strengthen an alliancebetween two men, though this is made much more explicit in Plutarch’s Cato Minor.I thank Kit Morrell and Clemence Schultze for their observations on the similaritiesand differences of the two cases.

29 For less dignified accounts of the marriage between the young Caesar and Livia,see Tac.Ann. 1.10; Suet.Aug. 62.2; 69.1; Dio 48.34.3. Dio implies that the embarrassmentcontinued for decades (54.16.5–6). For a useful extended study of the gossip, see Flory1988; 1989, 353.

30 Suetonius specifically records hostility between Pompeius and Ti. Nero (Suet.Tib. 4.3) although he later speaks of the kindness of Pompeius’ sister in presenting toysand clothes to the baby Tiberius. (Tib. 6.3). One wonders whether Nero’s unhappiness


329


was part of the defence he and Livia made against charges that they had turned theirbacks on their preserver.

31 Pliny NH 15.136–137; Dio 48.52.3–4; Flory 1989, especially 352–353; Bartman1999, 84; Kellum 1996, 222; Barrett 2002, 28–30. None of these scholars notesVelleius’ oblique reference to the omen though Barrett draws attention to itssignificance in the fight with Pompeius (2002, 39). Livy’s depiction of Tanaquil (Livy1.34.9), written in the light of the omen, is quite positive; she is a force for good forthe state, even though a foreigner and a queen. The similarity between Tanaquil andLivia has been noted, though usually in connection with the narratives of the death ofCaesar Augustus and the accession of Tiberius (Barrett 2002, 385).

32 Laurel from this grove was exclusively used for all the triumphal wreaths wornby Caesar Augustus himself and members of the dynasty. The last tree allegedly (andrather neatly) died in the lifetime of Nero (Pliny NH 15.137).

33 Dion.Hal. RA 8.55.4. On the evidence for Livia’s involvement in the restorationof the temple see Purcell 1986, 88–90, Barrett 2002, 205 and Gorrie 2004, 68–72. Theevidence for Livia’s intervention in the cult of Fortuna Muliebris relies on assumingthat an inscription discovered in the 19th century came from the spot where theTemple of Fortuna Muliebris was said to have been (Egidi 2004, 273).

34 CIL VI.883: Livia [D]rusi f uxsor [Caesaris Augusti – Impp C[aes] Severus et Anto[ninusAugg et Geta nobilissimus Caesar] et [Julia] Aug Mater Aug[g – restituerunt (‘Livia daughterof Drusus wife of Caesar Augustus... The Imperatores Caesar Severus and AntoninusAugusti and Geta, most noble Caesar, and Julia Augusta mother of the Augusti...restored...’). See also CIL 6882a. Boatwright (1991, 518) calls the filiation ‘boastful’.The charge perhaps says something about modern anxieties, especially given theprevalence of that filiation in Velleius.

35 Note the injunction in the consolatio ad Liviam from a later (and less fortunate)moment of Livia’s life (Consolatio 349–50): en posuit te alte Fortuna locumque tueri/iussithonoratum: Livia, perfer onus (‘See how Fortune has raised you high, and commanded youto occupy a place of great honour; so, Livia, bear up that load!’: translation by Purcell,1986, 78). In his opening address, the poet says, ‘Visa diu felix’ (‘For so long blessed’).

36 Woodman’s emendation (1983, 75).37 Brown 1995; Mustakallio 1999, 53–64, with Hemelrijk’s review BMCR 2000.03.11.

Ovid’s Sabines are even more the active agents of concord and their children are usefuland active pignora (Fasti 3.205–234; Murgatroyd 2005, 37–39).

38 We sadly do not have Velleius’ account of the Sabine women because our textbreaks off just as he introduces them (Vell. 1.8.6).

39 Plut. Ant. 31.2; 35.204; 53; 54; 56; 57. Pelling (1988, 201–202) notes the particularemphasis on Octavia and tentatively suggests that the development is Plutarch’s owncreation. Yet he otherwise notes that the Life reeks with the propaganda of the day(e.g. 1988, 252–253). We should note that whenever he mentions her, Plutarchobserves Octavia’s agency. Even at the point of her marriage to Antonius, he describesthe people’s trust in her qualities, not just the fact of the union, which allow them tohope for peace and concord (τοῦτον ἅπαντες εἰσηγοῦντο τὸν γάµον, ἐλπίζοντες τὴνὈκταουίαν, ἐπὶ κάλλει τοσούτῳ σεµνότητα καὶ νοῦν ἔχουσαν, εἰς ταὐτὸν τῷ Ἀντωνίῳπαραγενοµένην καὶ στερχθεῖσαν ὡς εἰκὸς τοιαύτην γυναῖκα, πάντων πραγµάτων αὐτοῖςσωτηρίαν ἔσεσθαι καὶ σύγκρασιν). The use of σύγκρασις is particularly evocative,denoting a perfect balance and even astrological harmony which links this description

Kathryn Welch

330


to Vergil’s fourth Eclogue which is also thought to commemorate the hope of thismarriage. Octavia is afterwards depicted as bringing off the reconciliation at Tarentum,and even later defying her brother to remain in Antonius’ house (Ant. 53). Moreover,she is twice depicted as persuading Agrippa to act in the public interest rather than herown or that of her daughter (Ant. 35.2; 87). She organises marriages for all the childrenunder her care, including Cleopatra’s, and her daughter Antonia enjoys an equallydistinguished reputation (Ant. 87). If Plutarch has created the image it is a remarkablyconsistent one across the Life. Pelling notes (rightly) that Dio says very little aboutOctavia but, even in this brief and undeveloped assessment, Dio notes her‘instrumentality’ at 48.54.3. I would like to acknowledge Christopher Pelling’ssearching comment in the discussion following this paper’s oral presentation whichinspired me to think more carefully about Octavia’s role in the Concordia rhetoric.

40 For Scribonia’s ‘shrewishness’ see Suet. Aug. 62.2; Flory 1989, 353; Powell 2009,181.

41 Syme 1939, 229; 340; 344–5; Flory 1988, 344–349.42 Octavia’s interventions: Dio 47.7.4; App. BC 4.32; Welch 2009, 197. Appian

remarks particularly on the graciousness of Octavia and Julia to act on the women’sbehalf in contrast to Fulvia’s churlishness (BC 4.32). One cannot help wonderingwhether the way in which Octavia’s story was told was meant to counter-balance theaccounts of ‘good’ women who, as I have argued, were otherwise connected toTriumviral opponents. Certainly the words Plutarch assigns to her at Tarentum (Ant.35) bear a similarity to those Dionysius’ Veturia utters to her son (RA 8.53.3). I amindebted again to Christopher Pelling for calling the connection to my attention.

43 Horace’s decision to prioritise Livia’s name should make us extremely wary ofasserting that Octavia came first in consequence in this period (e.g. Barrett 2002, 28).It is true that Octavia was older and had been a consular wife since 50 but Livia as thewife of the princeps must have taken precedence once Antonius had been eliminated.We do not know how much time Livia spent in Spain with Caesar Augustus duringhis proconsular campaigns. There are indications that she was there for part of thetime but, as Barrett (2002, 34–5) points out, this does not obviate the message ofHorace’s poem.

44 Treggiari opens her study with this image (2005, 130). Marks (2008, 84) displaysthe knots scholars tie themselves into when trying to suggest that in participating inthe adventus women were stepping outside ‘their proper sphere’. Welcoming home areturning army was possibly one of the regular duties of the women, and in any casea public appearance of this body was not a deviation from propriety, as Livy’sexamples serve to show (above, n. 24). See also Ovid Fasti 4.295–6 and consolatioll. 33–36. As Purcell (1986, 82) argues, the virtue of the Roman matronae had a trulypublic face.

45 The jury still appears to be out on whether Livia and Octavia were mere window-dressing for their most important building projects (Boatwright 1991, 519–520; Milnor2005, 56–64; Treggiari 2005, 142). The evidence for a nominal role rests mostly onSuetonius (Aug. 29.4) and Dio, who in fact offers conflicting opinions (49.43.8;54.23.6; 55.2.4; 55.8.1). He must ignore the evidence of Caesar Augustus himself (theporticus of the women are not claimed at RG 19–20). Ovid (AA 1.67–74; Fasti6.637–48) and Strabo (5.3.8.236) are two more contemporaries who imply that thewomen were active agents in the building process. The confusion of two porticus


331


(Octavia and Octaviae) has not helped the issue (Richardson 1976). Flory’s study(1984) is excellent in many aspects but I cannot agree with her on this vital point.Excluding the ladies from the honour of paying for their buildings does not makesense. How could it be that Vipsania Polla in Rome and Eumachia in Pompeiiobviously enjoyed the honour attached to paying for their own buildings while theleading ladies of Rome were to be satisfied with something less? Flory later attemptedto refute Purcell’s very different image of Livia by rejecting the evidence of theconsolatio (Flory 1996, 296) but the discovery of the inscription SC de Pisone patre tendsto confirm the picture which emerges from both the consolatio and Velleius. Purcell’scase is thus reinforced. On the similarity of Livia’s image in all three texts, see Jenkins2009.

46 Ovid Fasti 6.637–48; Flory (1984, 311–312) accepts Livia’s dedication of thisshrine although she argues against anything more than a nominal role for Livia inbuilding the actual porticus. Lobur (2008, 902) notes the re-emergence of Concordia,Salus, Pietas and Pax in official iconography between 11 and 7. The period alsowitnesses a new focus on Livia. The coincidence is almost certainly not accidental asthese positive ‘Augustan’ concepts had long been associated with Livia.

47 The lines which follow draw attention to Caesar Augustus as a censor who leadsby example. The example offered is not the building of the shrine (Livia’s task) but thedestruction of Vedius Pollio’s house (Fasti 6.641–648; Richardson 1978). VediusPollio’s house was bequeathed in 15, the porticus not dedicated until 7, eight years later.At Fasti 6.637–48, Ovid telescopes the three events (demolition, building, shrine) butat no point does he say that Caesar Augustus built the porticus and at Ars Am. 1.72unequivocally calls Livia the building’s auctor. Pace Littlewood (2006, 188) whosuggests that Ovid says that Augustus paid for the building work as well as thedemolition, which he does not. Her commentary shows the strong emphasis on femalecults and Livia herself which Book 6 of Fasti offers.

48 Flory 1984, 316–317. Severy (2003, 132) takes Flory’s proposal as fact. Milnor(2005, 57) takes a mid-way position: ‘Livia as imperial spouse might dedicate a shrineto Concordia and rely on a neat ambiguity between “concord” as a virtue ofmatrimony and as an attribute of good government’. Littlewood (2006, 186) alsoassumes harmonious marriage as the principal concern. However, Hardie (2007,568–570) offers a much richer interpretation, especially by linking it to Juno’s capacityfor discord and the correspondence between Ovid’s description of the Temple ofAugustan Concord and Livia’s shrine.

49 I thank Roger Pitcher for alerting me to this vital context. For an extendeddiscussion, see Littlewood 2006, 145–190.

50 Takács (2008, 48) suggests that the compromise etymology could include bothJuna and Juventis, ensuring that everyone was happy. For the importance of theSabines in several works of Ovid see Murgatroyd 2005, 255–258. Their own festival,the Matronalia celebrated in March, was yet another occasion to commemoratelegendary female participation in the appropriated concordia project.

51 The dedicatory inscription on Eumachia’s building in Pompeii also connectsconcordia Augusta and pietas (CIL 10.810–811). See also Barrett 2002, 189; Dixon 2007,107. Littlewood (2006, 32–34) takes Concordia to be Augustus in disguise. However,as Powell (2008) shows, ‘Augustus’ as Triumvir had allowed anger to overcome pietas.Livia could be made to represent the exact opposite and her associations with

Kathryn Welch

332


Concordia were well-established (Littlewood 2006, 30; Bartman 1999, 86–96). Shealso has an association with laurel through the omen of the white chicken. Thethought-provoking discussion of Hardie (2007) came too late to my attention for meto consider its full implications for my arguments here but they are numerous, notleast in his exploration of the harmonious sisterhood of the Muses (2007, 566–7) andtheir role in the restoration of concordia.

52 Livia’s connections with the triumph of Tiberius and the intended triumph ofDrusus are clear. Kellum (1990), Simpson (1991) and Jenkins (2009) offer argumentsfor her close involvement with Tiberius’ Temple of Concordia Augusta in the Forum.If the porticus was Caesar Augustus’ building which was simply named after Livia, onealso needs to ask why the honour of dedicating it was granted to Livia and Tiberius(Dio 55.8.1).

53 Vell. 2.94 1: Hoc tractu temporum Ti. Claudius Nero, quo trimo, ut praediximus, LiviaDrusi Claudiani filia, despondente ei Nerone, cui ante nupta fuerat Caesari nupserat, ...quaestorundevicesimum annum agens (‘At this period Tiberius Claudius Nero, whose mother, as Ihave said, Livia, the daughter of Drusus Claudianus, had married Caesar with theconsent of her husband Nero, to whom she had been married before, when [theirson] was three years of age...becoming quaestor in his nineteenth year’). See alsoWoodman 1977, 96–97. On artistic representations of Livia and her sons, Bartman1999, 81–84.

54 The consolatio reflects a similar interest in the Claudian and Livian ancestry ofTiberius and Drusus and, of course, the motherhood of Livia (consolatio 11. 1–4;145–46; 329–34; 447–54; Chambers 2006, 159–63). I thank Eleanor Cowan (Chambers)for providing a text of her unpublished thesis dealing with this topic.

55 Vell. 2.100; 2.129; Levick 1975.56 Richardson 1978; Flory 1984, 311 (who corrects Richardson on several points);

Zanker 1998, 97–8.57 Torelli 1996, 154–158. Torelli also examines the sanctuary of Venus where a

grandmother and granddaughter, both named Valeria Sabina, built kitchens forfeasting in this predominantly female sanctuary (1996, 160–175). See also Purcell’scitation of examples from Lanuvium, Pisa, Naples and Surrentum as well as Rome(1986, 84–85). On the political and military background to the temple of Bona Mensat Rome see Littlewood 2006, 77–79. On the connection of Concordia, Spes andMens, see Hardie 2007, 558.

58 R.column, ll. 4–10.59 Milnor 2005, 182; Treggiari 2005, 140: ‘Women are the great survivors: Livia

(58 BC–AD 29) bridges the late Republic and her son’s principate. Junia Tertia, theniece of Cato, sister of Brutus and widow of Cassius, lived until AD 22, 63 years afterher husband and brother died at Philippi’.

60 Treggiari 2005, 146; Cooley 1998; Lobur 2008, 174.61 For a recent study of Livia’s public image (as opposed to anything people said

about her privately) see Jenkins 2009.62 On the artificiality of the speech and even the possible lack of historicity of the

conspiracy of Cinna Magnus see Swan 2004, 146–151; Lobur 2008, 135; Braund 2009,258–279; 424–431. On Livia’s reputation as an intercessor, see Purcell 1986, 87–9;Dixon 2007, 111–2; Jenkins 2009, 14–18. For a discussion of her acts of patronage seeBarrett 2002, 188–207.


333


63 Vell. 2.130.3; consolatio 47–48; SCPP ll. 115–19.64 Kellum 1994, 218. Castriota (1995) and Kellum (1990, 1994) have independently

shown that Augustan Concordia was increasingly symbolised as a judicious mix ofpreviously discordant elements in a new harmonious relationship. See also Sauron(2000) for a discussion of plants and their symbolism on the Ara Pacis.

65 NH 14.92. Livia’s portrait is used to depict Salus in the coinage of Tiberius fromAD 22–23 (RIC 1.29.95; 30.95). She was also possibly associated with Pax (RIC1.26.95). On Salus as more than health, see Krostenko 2005, 287.

66 Shipley’s translation assumes no change from 2.75.2 by taking eminentissima withfemina instead of mater although the phrase is separated by the strong conjunction et.Velleius’ use of similior deis quam hominibus suggests that Livia’s eminence has surpassednot only the boundaries of gender but even humanity. On the care Velleius applied tohis terminology (and especially to names and epithets), see Cowan in this volume.

67 The SCPP (ll. 109–120) records the official nature of the pardon Livia obtainedfor Plancina. On Livia as Romana princeps Purcell 1986, Boatwright 1991, 518–520;Treggiari 2005, 146; Jenkins 2009.

Kathryn Welch

334


Documents

Velleius and Livia: making a portrait E. Cowan (ed) Velleius Paterculus Making History 2011