Is This True? Julia The Elder

[phil25]

Where is the evidence for all these claims that aristocratic Roman women were promiscuous?

 

I'm aware of juvenal and Martial, of course - but the women they refer to are of a lower class than Julia.

 

I'd just like to comment on sources, which at the moment are invisible.

 

Phil

[Germanicus]

Where is the evidence for all these claims that aristocratic Roman women were promiscuous?

 

You mentioned Servilia before - wasn't she mistress to Caesar when married to Decimus Junius Silanus (Consul 62 BC) ? We don't know if it was her only affair, but certainly adultery, and certainly known about - but she didn't suffer ill effects did she ? An aristocrat to boot.

[phil25]

Germanicus - I am not questioning infidelity - this thread is about Julia's alleged extreme promiscuity.

 

I can myself cite plenty of cases of affairs, but Messalina apart - and I would also question that evidence of extreme promiscuity - and the younger Julia, I see no basis for the argument.

 

Phil

[Furius Venator]

The sisters of P. Clodius?

 

One can hardly get more aristocratic than the Claudii...

[Germanicus]

Germanicus - I am not questioning infidelity - this thread is about Julia's alleged extreme promiscuity.

 

Yes I know having read the thread. There seemed to be a side comming in though in relation to husbands being cuckolded, discretion etc, my only point was that there were Roman patrician women who had affairs and were as equally open about it as Caesar. Not a good idea for Julia though I agree, although perhaps she didn't realise the kind of man her father was.

 

As to her promiscuity - maybe she was, maybe she wasn't. Actual evidence though only suggests a lover or perhaps a few.

[phil25]

I really don't think there is very much daylight between our views, Germanicus.

 

Phil

[Romulus Sicanus]

A lot of what was written and what we take as "history" is actually nothing more than invented tripe or just hearsay and gossip by political columnists and enemies,and sometimes this tuff was written many many years after the facts or timeframe.

 

We're finding out that Caligula and Nero did not deserve a lot of the cruel treatment that has been heaped upon their names in the past.

 

As for Julia,she couldve been an embarrassment in soem form or another in the eyes of the people or her parents..then again who knows. That number is rather crazy and the story a bit to bogus.

Edited May 26, 2006 by Romulus Sicanus

[phil25]

I have posted several times recently suggesting that we need to look again at Gaius and Nero, and reassess their reputations.

 

However, I would not agree for a minute that "...we're finding out that Caligula and Nero did not deserve a lot of the cruel treatment that has been heaped upon their names in the past."

 

To do THAT would require new evidence, and I am unaware of any.All I argue, and I cannot, of course, speak for others, is that we need to LOOK again at the evidence that does exist. But that is interpretation and essentially subjective.

 

If people agree with me, that's fine - but please do not think that the material has changed, only the patterns we might perceive them in.

 

Phil

[Guest Sophie-Lou]

Over looking all the history done on Julia, I can honestly say, like everyone else here, that 80,000 is just not true. It's almost impossible and to have had so many affairs would have sure resulted in more then five children who were all her husband. Despite the colourful picture they paint, most of it sounds too "out there." At first only a few men were mentioned as being "alleged" lovers, but by the time we get to people like Seneca and Tiberius boosters, we get droves and prostitution charges. The later they get the more gossip based and overdone they are.

 

No one knows what actually happened to Julia. She's a big question mark. A great deal of this offering to strangers sounds like gossip as no woman in her state, ever a stupid one, would have got away with it as long as some claim she did. What we do know of Julia is that she wasn't a horrible person, she was said to be kind, gentle and not nearly as vindictive as many would assume. She was witty, she knew how to fight and she was beautiful, and one of the few women in that time that was intelligent and used it to her advantage. She was loved by the people because of her qualities and the protest they put up proves that they couldn't have heard too much of this prostitution rubbish otherwise they would have sat back and thought about it before they took up arms.

 

Don't get me wrong, I will not go far enough to say that Julia was a chaste after Tiberius went bye-bye, I don't think she was and I'm pretty sure she may have had a few lovers, but Iullus Antonius is the only one I'll give credit too. He's the only one Augustus planned to execute and the only one who may (or may not) have done something worth it to be killed or to kill himself over. There is something more to the story then the conclusion that Julia and Iullus were getting down to it. But then again, if we do go with the "plot-to-kill-daddy", would Julia really kill her father when she has it made anyway. Her son Gaius was going to be the next emperor, and she had two spares, Lucius and Postumus, so she had nothing to gain from her father's death. The only thing she would get out of it was a divorce from Tiberius, a marriage to Iullus and a probably become queen... But would that really be worth it? Augustus was her father, he loved her deeply, if she wanted something she could have tried to sway him and if Augustus did die and Gaius became emperor, she could get her way through him no doubt and she would over take Livia, her arch rival in power. That's all she would have wanted. In the end, it's depends how you look at her, but in all likelihood the idea that she had that many lovers is stupid, purely common make believe. Not even Messalina had as many lovers as alleged on the site and she was twice as bad as Julia.

 

Augustus led a pretty kinky sex life himself, much more scandalous then Julia's probably was, and her grandfather by adoption, Julius Caesar had a terrible reputation when it came to sex. If Julia did putout, Augustus has only himself to blame. If the affairs did happen, I imagine she would have found it annoying.

[phil25]

What we do know of Julia is that she wasn't a horrible person, she was said to be kind, gentle and not nearly as vindictive as many would assume. She was witty, she knew how to fight and she was beautiful, and one of the few women in that time that was intelligent and used it to her advantage. She was loved by the people because of her qualities and the protest they put up proves that they couldn't have heard too much of this prostitution rubbish otherwise they would have sat back and thought about it before they took up arms.

 

Can I ask where we know all this from?

 

...But then again, if we do go with the "plot-to-kill-daddy", would Julia really kill her father when she has it made anyway. Her son Gaius was going to be the next emperor, and she had two spares, Lucius and Postumus, so she had nothing to gain from her father's death.

 

I'd question this. While we know NOTHING of Julia's motives as far as I am aware. However, those motives might have included: impatience that Augustus was not dead yet (history shows us that heirs to thrones can often get impatient with thier royal parents); a desire to have more power herself (after all she was the carrier of the Julian blood-line); a feeling that Tiberius might succeed rather than her sons; or, (to my mind the most likely) a major difference in policy as to the direction the principiate should take.

 

Julia was part of a younger, post-Republic generation. they could have perceived less need than their predecessors for a concealed absolutism. Syme hints that even Agrippa might have staged a coup at one point to change the constitution, and Julia was Agrippa's widow - she might well have been influenced by his conceptions and political ideas in contradistinction to her father's. Certainly there is nothing that would make me put any faith in the unity of the imperial family, or the idea that they played happy families together!!

 

The only thing she would get out of it was a divorce from Tiberius, a marriage to Iullus and a probably become queen... But would that really be worth it?

 

It depends on what that meant and what she wanted. But as a suggestion (no more) what if Iullus had held out the offer of joint rule (like his father and Cleopatra)? If Julia was politically minded, and marriage to Agrippa might have woken that in her, even if it was not part of her character, she might have welcomed that.

 

I advance no theories, but I think one should be very careful about taking too conventional a view as well. Rome and its way of thinking would be very alien to us, I believe.

 

But all that said, I am not in disagreement with your basic thrust.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

Perhaps some of us are falling into the modern mode of thinking that sexuality equality is the norm - it certainly wasn't in Rome. By tradition women were either the property of fathers, husbands, or masters. We would find the ideal roman woman as horibbly mousy and downtrodden.

 

But roman women weren't always ideal were they? Like us, they varied in character and ambition. Some women became influential, others ran businesses when society said they shouldn't.

 

Julia was a party girl. She liked the night-life, enjoyed a dalliance, and I see her as something of an incorrigible flirt. Eventually her fun lifestyle reached the desk of her father. Now Augustus wasn't squeaky clean by any means, and since he'd lectured all and sundry on roman standards and morality, it would paint him as a hypocrite to let his daughter party the night away and sleep around a bit. Worse still, she had done this with some important people in Rome. The embarrasement must have been acute. Julia was the first daughter of the principate - this wild party behaviour wasn't going to pass unnoticed. If she can't behave, then she's off to some island until she does.

 

Contrary to the post above, as I said earlier Julia did eventually return from exile. She was was allowed back provided she lived discreetly, and as far as I'm aware, she did so. Lesson learned there I think, though as always with the romans the lesson was a cruel one.

 

The lucky ones were the male partners of Julia. Quite frankly it wouldn't suprise me to read of Augustus having the lot of them thrown to the lions. He didn't. He had more sense than to create enemies from these mens families.

Edited June 1, 2006 by caldrail

[Guest Sophie-Lou]

I'd question this. While we know NOTHING of Julia's motives as far as I am aware. However, those motives might have included: impatience that Augustus was not dead yet (history shows us that heirs to thrones can often get impatient with thier royal parents); a desire to have more power herself (after all she was the carrier of the Julian blood-line); a feeling that Tiberius might succeed rather than her sons; or, (to my mind the most likely) a major difference in policy as to the direction the principiate should take.

 

Julia was part of a younger, post-Republic generation. they could have perceived less need than their predecessors for a concealed absolutism. Syme hints that even Agrippa might have staged a coup at one point to change the constitution, and Julia was Agrippa's widow - she might well have been influenced by his conceptions and political ideas in contradistinction to her father's. Certainly there is nothing that would make me put any faith in the unity of the imperial family, or the idea that they played happy families together!!

 

It depends on what that meant and what she wanted. But as a suggestion (no more) what if Iullus had held out the offer of joint rule (like his father and Cleopatra)? If Julia was politically minded, and marriage to Agrippa might have woken that in her, even if it was not part of her character, she might have welcomed that.

 

I advance no theories, but I think one should be very careful about taking too conventional a view as well. Rome and its way of thinking would be very alien to us, I believe.

 

But all that said, I am not in disagreement with your basic thrust.

 

Phil

 

Iullus may well have offered her marriage and joint-rule in Rome, no one would oppose that, as Iullus was very popular too... But I find it hard to believe that Julia would do that at the expense of her own sons. There must have been something more in it for her. I could understand her fear for her sons from Tiberius who may become emperor, but from my understanding Augustus had no intention of making Tiberius emperor. He adopted Julia's sons as his heirs and the marriage between Julia and Tiberius appears to be a "just-in-case" job, if Augustus were to die he'd want some man in charge until the boys came of age because Augustus appears to have underestimated the intelligence of both his daughter and wife just because they were women. Besides, Tiberius was in Rhodes with no intention of coming back. Maybe the only thing that could lure him back was the death of Augustus, and with her sons underage, he would probably be regent with Julia. That would have been the last thing Julia would want and she would have needed to get rid of him in order to be the power behind the throne... Which brings me to the next plot hole, why not kill Tiberius first? With her father alive, it ensured her sons time to grow up and allow Gaius to become capable of being emperor without any help. Augustus offered Julia protection.

 

The stories of her personality lie in some historical sources, I can't think of his name now, but he recorded some interesting records Julia's wit that had been common joke with Augustus. It's from there you find that Julia's personality was nothing like what some would think she'd be. She wasn't a good person, but she wasn't a bad one either. As for the historians, when you look at people like Suetonius, he seems to breeze on by the exile of Julia as if he didn't know much other then it had something to do with her "reputation" and that it had a large impact on her father. He probably didn't know much about the exile. Where as, when you get later sources, they sound as if they've been based off speculation rather then the facts. As for the theories and questions of what actually happened to Julia, I take from the ideas that came from Dr Elaine Fantham's theories. She is publishing a book on Julia at the end of next month if anyone's interested. I have to say that I agree with her many views on what may have happened because they do seem logical.

 

It seems Julia has played victim to a good deal of Augustus' heir plans. He married her to his favourite people to try and get heirs off her and then to her stepdaughter's husband, leaving her her with a regretful husband who she herself probably didn't like. If she did cause trouble for him, I still side with her cause she appears to be the lesser of two evils, she was rebel after all. I agree with the idea that marriage to Agrippa woke Julia up to politics and power while she was married to him. The idea of being both daughter of the most powerful man in Rome and wife to the second and mother of future heirs I imagine would have made her very ambitious for her boys. Any mother would be.

 

The Romans did a lot of bonking back then, and it's hard to have taken Augustus seriously when he had a reputation for deflowering virgins as well as sleeping with married women. The ideal of virtue only really linked to a few men and women. The only sexless women I can think of right now that are of importance are Livia, Octavia and Antonia Minor. There is not a doubt in my mind that Julia had lovers, lots of people had lovers... But I can't believe she had a countless amount.

 

In any case, if Iullus Antonius was her prominate lover, good luck to them!

Edited June 1, 2006 by Sophie-Lou

[phil25]

I still think you are swallowing far too much period invective as objective truth, and drawing moral conclusions about Julia (as a good or bad person) for which i personally see no justification.

 

As for Romans doing a lot more bonking than us - I wonder. Perhaps you have been seeing too many Hollywood movies??

 

Just my opinions though.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

Sex was more freely available then. Even a wealthy domus might have alcoves at the back to rent out to prostitutes. I agree. They did bonk a lot. Not everyone though. Impotence and overbearing wives for instance are nothing new. Some people led very moral lives.

[phil25]

One thing that these forums bring out consistently, is how different posters' views of ancient Rome and life then are. Fascinating.

 

Phil