Creating the Wicked Stepmother

[The Augusta]

This is not an article - it is just a simple post on a question that has bugged me for some time. Why is it that Suetonius, our most scurrilous narrator of rumour and scandal, offers not the slightest hint of Livia as the poisoner we know in Dio. Even in Tacitus, Livia's reputation as this monster hinges on a single phrase: when relating the deaths of Gaius and Lucius, Tacitus says that they died naturally 'unless their stepmother Livia had something to do with it'. (Grant's translation). These men were virtual contemporaries and whatever 'rumours' were known to Tacitus must have been known to Suetonius too? Why did Suetonius not include such rumours? His only derogatory comment on Livia as a murderess is his speculation that she may have given the order for Postumus' death in exile (Life of Tiberius). Had she done so, it would have been the act of an astute ruler. Tacitus also mentions this, and it makes me wonder whether it is from this event that all rumours of her earlier machinations have sprung. Dio's later accounts have been embellished with years of 'folklore' no doubt, and coloured by the empresses of the later Julio-Claudian period and beyond. Not only this, Tiberius was clearly the most unpopular successor to Augustus, and the idea that his succession had been 'forced on' Augustus by a domineering wife no doubt eased the public consciousness. How could such a universally loved and respected 'god' confine Rome to the rulership of such an individual?

 

For my own part, I fully believe that Livia was heavily involved in the removal of Postumus after Augustus' death. At the time it can hardly have upset people; the Senate itself had complained to Augustus about the young man's behaviour, and had he succeeded to the Principate it would have been a disaster. The key to all this, I believe, is that Postumus was the brother of Agrippina, and as the wife of Germanicus she commanded a great deal of influence and support. We all know that Tacitus adds to the general panegyric about Germanicus, and after the death of Augustus there were clearly two parties in the state: The Germanicus/Agrippina set versus the Tiberius/Livia set. I believe that the death of Germanicus was the key event in the 're-creation' of Livia as the wicked stepmother who had poisoned all Augustus' heirs. I will go further and lay at Tacitus' door this false portrait that has come down to us. He is, after all, the earliest source who mentions these 'rumours'. Livia was one of the first women to exercise her power and influence, which must have disgusted Tacitus - hence he calls her a 'disaster to the nation'. She was a 'disaster' no doubt because she was the mother of a hated Princeps. Interestingly, he does not condemn Agrippina for similar influence over Germanicus!

 

Any thoughts?

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

True, when you look back over the writings of Tacitus and Suetonius, the one that stands out as portraying Livia as " the wicked stepmother" is probably Tacitus with comments like "But Livia was a real catastrophe, to the nation, as a mother and to the house of the Caesars as a stepmother." Tac ann 1.10. But he also left a poignant and concise comment in her obituary, he says "In the purity of her home life she was of the ancient type, http://' target="_blank">but was more gracious than was thought fitting in ladies of former days. An imperious mother and an amiable wife, she was a match for the diplomacy of her husband and the dissimulation of her son" Tac ann 5.1

 

Although Tacitus must have had a disgust for her power and influence as a woman and shows this in his writings, he must also have had a grudging respect for her as well to leave such a fitting obituary.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[georgious]

This is not an article - it is just a simple post on a question that has bugged me for some time. Why is it that Suetonius, our most scurrilous narrator of rumour and scandal, offers not the slightest hint of Livia as the poisoner we know in Dio. Even in Tacitus, Livia's reputation as this monster hinges on a single phrase: when relating the deaths of Gaius and Lucius, Tacitus says that they died naturally 'unless their stepmother Livia had something to do with it'. (Grant's translation). These men were virtual contemporaries and whatever 'rumours' were known to Tacitus must have been known to Suetonius too? Why did Suetonius not include such rumours? His only derogatory comment on Livia as a murderess is his speculation that she may have given the order for Postumus' death in exile (Life of Tiberius). Had she done so, it would have been the act of an astute ruler. Tacitus also mentions this, and it makes me wonder whether it is from this event that all rumours of her earlier machinations have sprung. Dio's later accounts have been embellished with years of 'folklore' no doubt, and coloured by the empresses of the later Julio-Claudian period and beyond. Not only this, Tiberius was clearly the most unpopular successor to Augustus, and the idea that his succession had been 'forced on' Augustus by a domineering wife no doubt eased the public consciousness. How could such a universally loved and respected 'god' confine Rome to the rulership of such an individual?

 

For my own part, I fully believe that Livia was heavily involved in the removal of Postumus after Augustus' death. At the time it can hardly have upset people; the Senate itself had complained to Augustus about the young man's behaviour, and had he succeeded to the Principate it would have been a disaster. The key to all this, I believe, is that Postumus was the brother of Agrippina, and as the wife of Germanicus she commanded a great deal of influence and support. We all know that Tacitus adds to the general panegyric about Germanicus, and after the death of Augustus there were clearly two parties in the state: The Germanicus/Agrippina set versus the Tiberius/Livia set. I believe that the death of Germanicus was the key event in the 're-creation' of Livia as the wicked stepmother who had poisoned all Augustus' heirs. I will go further and lay at Tacitus' door this false portrait that has come down to us. He is, after all, the earliest source who mentions these 'rumours'. Livia was one of the first women to exercise her power and influence, which must have disgusted Tacitus - hence he calls her a 'disaster to the nation'. She was a 'disaster' no doubt because she was the mother of a hated Princeps. Interestingly, he does not condemn Agrippina for similar influence over Germanicus!

 

Any thoughts?

The series I Claudius of which you wrote such an apt review accepts the idea of a bad Livia as she confesses her crimes to the astounded Claudious and in her deathbed implores him to make her a goddess -so she will not go to hell.When Tacitus considers Livia a disaster to the nation what is the latin phrasing-nationalism is an invetion of the French revolution -how can Livia be a disaster a nation. Was there national feeling in Rome?It was an empire then so obviously civic loyalty had to do with the person or family of the emperor-as much latter in Austria-Hungary in the dynasty of the Habsburgs but in the nation?I find this mention very interesting-in what sense was nation a political idea in Rome. I am interested on opinions. As far as Livia is concerned I think I have looked somewhere at the bookcover of a biography of her but have not read it.My image of Livia comes mainly from I Claudius.I would like to hear about an alternative assesment of her life and times.