Is This True? Julia The Elder

[Guest DCLXVI]

Is this true

 

Julia the Elder (39BC-14AD)

[Lost_Warrior]

I wouldn't doubt that she had relations with a LOT of men, that seems to have been the fashion of many aristocratic Roman women. I think the number 80,000 is most certainly an exhaggeration. As for the exile, I'm not sure whether that actually happened or not. It might have.

[phil25]

I think the whole thing is probably untrue - not least because it is all supposed to have happened a generation later with Julia's daughter (of the same name).

 

Neither do I think there is a scrap of evidence that Roman aristocratic ladies were promiscuous. Given the falling birth-rate, which Augustus legislated on - the risks were too great of an illegitimate offspring being foisted on a noble as an heir. Think about it. Do you honestly think it realistic that Roman husbands were so stupid? I certainly don't. And I don't think it credible that Augustus would allow the only channel through which his blood (and technically that of the divine Caesar) could pass, to prostitute herself with all the risks of off-spring who could claim some right to the throne. Given the lack of heirs, even an illegitimate one might have been able to make something of Julian blood.

 

That Julia may have had an affair with Iullus Antonius (son of the triumvir) I find wholly plausible. That there was a conspiracy, or a planned coup against the Augustan regime, I don't doubt. I suspect Julia was conned into acting by the promise of being regent for her sons; or a "queen" to Antonius' monarch.

 

The death of Iullus is the key, I think.

 

Probably some story about promiscuity was put around as a cover by the regime. They would not want internal divisions to be exposed in case they were then used by others.

 

That Gaius and Lucius remained loyal to their adopted father (and blood grand-father) to me also suggests that they were aware of what their mother had done.

 

I think Rome and Romans, (especially the rulers) despite their earthy humour and undoubted sex drive, were far more serious than these repeated tales of perversion and manic sex would have us believe.

 

When rivals clashed under the republic it was common practice to throw sexual innuendoes out about the other - homosexuality, perversions, sleeping with virgins, bestiality.... None of it was true. Remember caesar and the claims of his relationship with the King of Bithynia? There is no other trace of homosexual tendencies in Caesar's life, but it was a convenient piece of much to hurl at him.

 

Phil

[Ursus]

Is this true

 

Julia the Elder (39BC-14AD)

[Pertinax]

Which leads me where I feared to tread at first-STDs in the Ancient World. I am casting about for a piece I read regarding infertility and "social diseases", which in essence suggested that given a. the low "world population" density (acknowledging urban concentration as a countervailing index) b. low age at marriage and conception c. repeated conception d. usage of pessary/prophlactic physical "gel" barriers . That as viral mutation of STDs was also in an "infantile" stage non-specific urethritis might be a problem but "killer"STDs were less of a threat than "ordinary" bacilli (plague for example). So it is suggested that the denizens of the Roman world could apparently indulge in salacious and libidinous activities of an extravagant nature with far less chance of life threatening infection.

This doesnt mean I am encouraging quite such an ambitious number of fervent encounters.

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...&cmd=si&img=103

 

heres one of the commoner contraceptive gel plants discussed in Roman medicine.

Edited May 21, 2006 by Pertinax

[phil25]

By my calculation, if julia had five different lovers a day, on every day of the year, it would take her more than 43 YEARS to reach a total of 80,000.

 

Was Julia even that age by the time she was exiled?

 

I rest my case.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

Of course there were promiscuous women (of all ages) in Rome - there always is in any culture. Thats human nature. The extent of it varies depending on how much tolerance there is. In roman times, it was frowned upon for a woman to behave this way. But that probably made it all the more fun. For instance, wealthy ladies would sometimes arrange affairs with famous gladiators and charioteers despite their slave status. One woman was thrown out of an upstairs window by a angry husband - he managed to lie his way to freedom.

 

As today, politics and business have a seamy underside and sex plays a large part in that. It certainly did then. It was not for nothing that Sertorius Macro allowed Caligula to bed his wife.

 

Julia was a naughty girl, I have absolutely no doubt. Did she sleep with 80,000 men? Pardon? Thats enough partners once a night for 219 years. Wow. I'm impressed. No of course thats an exaggeration, though she clearly put herself about something terrible and deeply shamed her father.

 

Having exiled her, he refused to bring her back even when crowds heckled him over it. Somewhat later he did just that on the quiet, making sure the 'repentant' Julia lived in seclusion.

[phil25]

I'm not sure I agree, Caldrail.

 

Having affairs is one thing, being promiscuous for an aristocrat quite another.

 

Privacy, as we know it was practically unknown until the C20th. Rooms in houses interconnected, and Roman bedrooms (cubicula) seldom had doors - curtains were more the norm.

 

Also slaves, in noble households, would have been ever-present - a body servant often slept outside the doorway.

 

All of which means that sleeping around would not have been very secret or unknown. In the political climate of Rome, the daughter of the princeps' acting in such a way would have attracted immediate attention and almost certainly would have been reported. there was political capital in it - even Augustus' allies would have seen it as an opportunity to get at the men involved (political rivals).

 

Given Livia's strict domesticity, I am sure that the situation would have been even more stark.

 

I certainly rule out all the stuff about fornication on the rostra etc - very uncomfortable and far too public and dangerous.

 

I am quite happy to believe that Julia had a few affairs, and as i have said am pretty sure she was involved in one (and a conspiracy) with young Antonius. Disliking her political machinations would in my view have been a far greater motive for tiberius to seek exile in Rhodes than the infidelity and promiscuity of his wife. Unfaithfulness he could have dealt with easily - and I doubt he would have wanted to bring disgrace to Augustus - so would have dealt with that by staying in Rome.

 

Why do I doubt the written evidence? Because it is impractical and also because I find the similarity of the story about Julia Minor too implausible. Maybe stories about Messaline are being thrown back a generation (even if those are true).

 

It is interesting that there is apparently no scandal attached to julia during her marriages either to Marcellus or the much older Agrippa. Her marriage to Tiberius would not have been a love match, but I don't see him as a man to let his wife wander sexually - he was too dignified and traditional. But political chicanery might have been less evident. And the evidence certainly implies that was involved.

 

Look at sexual scandals in our own day - Profumo in the UK; Kennedy or Clinton in the US. Almost always the sexual peccadillos are on a small scale, but the scandal is great because of the political fall-out. The sins are made to look large and awful by rivals. I think Rome was similar.

 

Phil

[Primus Pilus]

I am quite happy to believe that Julia had a few affairs, and as i have said am pretty sure she was involved in one (and a conspiracy) with young Antonius. Disliking her political machinations would in my view have been a far greater motive for tiberius to seek exile in Rhodes than the infidelity and promiscuity of his wife. Unfaithfulness he could have dealt with easily - and I doubt he would have wanted to bring disgrace to Augustus - so would have dealt with that by staying in Rome.

 

I'm not really sure the need for the connection of Tiberius in your conspiracy theory. Tiberius was already known to be unhappy for having to divorce Vipsania Agrippina, and was probably quite weary of the entire political scene altogether. His later second withdrawal to Capri acts as further evidence of a need to distance himself from such things.

 

Otherwise the 'plot' theory of Julia the Elder is attested by Pliny and the connection to other characters such as Iullus Antonius is evidenced by Paterculus. I don't think her promiscuity as evidenced by Macrobius, Pliny, Paterculus, Seneca, etc. necessarily detracts from her ability to be involved in a plot but actually supports it. Perhaps painting her in such a manner may be additional propaganda to help the public relations battle, but I don't see a great reason to say it's completely untrue.

[phil25]

PP, I have suggested in another thread (or earlier in this one??) that the promiscuity story might be part of a cover-up by the Augustan regime. A conspiracy to them might have been more damaging than sexual intrigue.

 

But I'm afraid I don't really wear all this Julio-Claudian sexual stuff - the times were one's when real politics was nasty enough. For the reasons I cited, I doubt that multiple sexual lovers was really a practical possibility. As for Tiberius, as I said, I think he would have dealt with infidelity discretely and quickly - political intrigue might have been more difficult and damaging.

 

On Vipsania, it is not often noted that as Agrippa's daughter by his first wife, she had a very complex relationship with Julia - her step-mother and second wife to her first husband. She and julia must have known each other well, if only from meeting in Agrippa's house during his lifetime. One wonders what their relationship was?

 

Phil

[Primus Pilus]

PP, I have suggested in another thread (or earlier in this one??) that the promiscuity story might be part of a cover-up by the Augustan regime. A conspiracy to them might have been more damaging than sexual intrigue.

 

But I'm afraid I don't really wear all this Julio-Claudian sexual stuff - the times were one's when real politics was nasty enough. For the reasons I cited, I doubt that multiple sexual lovers was really a practical possibility. As for Tiberius, as I said, I think he would have dealt with infidelity discretely and quickly - political intrigue might have been more difficult and damaging.

 

On Vipsania, it is not often noted that as Agrippa's daughter by his first wife, she had a very complex relationship with Julia - her step-mother and second wife to her first husband. She and julia must have known each other well, if only from meeting in Agrippa's house during his lifetime. One wonders what their relationship was?

 

Phil

 

Oh of course I am not trying to suggest that all the sexual intrigue is completely accurate, only that it doesn't necessarily have to be untrue to prove that Julia was involved in a plot. Would such stories be convenient? Absolutely they would have been, but since there is additional surviving evidence of her involvement in a plot anyway, why can't both be at least partially true. I think perhaps this may be a case of exaggeration more than blatant propagandic lie.

[M. Porcius Cato]

10,000 is highly unlikely; 80,000 is simply absurd. Yet, it's still possible that Julia was very, very promiscuous.

 

Neither do I think there is a scrap of evidence that Roman aristocratic ladies were promiscuous. Given the falling birth-rate, which Augustus legislated on - the risks were too great of an illegitimate offspring being foisted on a noble as an heir. Think about it. Do you honestly think it realistic that Roman husbands were so stupid? I certainly don't. And I don't think it credible that Augustus would allow the only channel through which his blood (and technically that of the divine Caesar) could pass, to prostitute herself with all the risks of off-spring who could claim some right to the throne. Given the lack of heirs, even an illegitimate one might have been able to make something of Julian blood.

 

Julia was once asked how she managed to have so many lovers, yet all her children resembled their father. She reportedly replied that she never took on a new passenger unless she were already carrying a cargo (meaning, she only had affairs during her pregnancy). Even if this story isn't true, there were plenty of ways for Roman women to avoid bringing an illegitimate child into a household, and there were probably as many ways then as now to have a cladestine affair. It's not that Roman men were stupid; it's that Roman women were smart.

[phil25]

In my view, MPC, it's not about anyone being SMART, it's about the practicality of being discrete in a Roman domus.

 

Caesar was promiscuous, but clearly pretty open about it. His affairs were an open secret - only those like your namesake were in the dark (at least about Servilia!!

 

Antonius was a notorious whoremonger.

 

But I doubt whether the princeps' own and only daughter, could have kept much secret. Indeed, clearly she didn't. And the "cargo" remark could apply to two lovers as much as 80,000.

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

But I doubt whether the princeps' own and only daughter, could have kept much secret. Indeed, clearly she didn't. And the "cargo" remark could apply to two lovers as much as 80,000.

 

Sure--maybe Julia only had two affairs. But why on earth would she? Her husband--for whom she had no reported affection--is away most of the time; she's young, smart, sexy, and healthy; why not do what every other Roman does? As I said, 80000 lovers is simply absurd, but I don't see any reason to doubt that she was promiscuous, and even less reason to doubt that she was exiled.

[Furius Venator]

I would also add

 

What need for discretion? Wealthy Roman ladies were not especially noted for being discrete about their affairs and the Roman attitude to marriage, amongst the aristocracy at least, seems to have been rather different to our notions.