Livilla's death

[Ingsoc]

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

 

Can we return to this part of the thread?

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

 

What do the primary sources have to comment about this?

 

"His children also were put to death by decree, the girl (whom he had betrothed to the son of Claudius) having been first outraged by the public executioner on the principle that it was unlawful for a virgin to be put to death in the prison" (Dio Cassius, LVIII, 11.5)

 

"It was next decided to punish the remaining children of Sejanus, though the fury of the populace was subsiding, and people generally had been appeased by the previous executions. Accordingly they were carried off to prison, the boy, aware of his impending doom, and the little girl, who was so unconscious that she continually asked what was her offense, and whither she was being dragged, saying that she would do so no more, and a childish chastisement was enough for her correction. Historians of the time tell us that, as there was no precedent for the capital punishment of a virgin, she was violated by the executioner, with the rope on her neck. Then they were strangled and their bodies, mere children as they were, were flung down the Gemoniae. " (Tacitus, The Annales , 5.9)

[Drusus Nero]

The death of Livilla at the hands of her mother in the series "I, Claudius" seems pretty believable to me.

 

All her adult life Antonia (Livilla's mother) had tried to live as a proper Roman matron should.

And I think when such a serious situation as this cropped up (Sejanus attempting to take over the state) she didn't want her family's good name to be open to scorn and abuse by the public.

I think she was also ashamed to think of what Drusus might have thought his daughter's actions?.

[spittle]

Were there similar 'for the sins of their Fathers' punishments during the Republic or did the fate of these innocent children belong purely to Principate era type thinking?

Edited November 24, 2007 by spittle

[caldrail]

The fathers right of life or death over his children was traditional, and goes right back to the beginning. Anotonia assumed those rights over the household as a widow. Strictly speaking Claudius should have assumed them on coming of age, but Antonia didn't believe he was a suitable patron.

[Octavia]

That's what I've been trying to get to all along? What do the other sources say reguarding Livilla's death and about Sujanis's children? As for Augustus, you all are right in saying that he had different errors to the throne, but it came down to tiberius, which I feel sorry about because I feel rome would have been a better empire with someone else, but whoes to say.

[caldrail]

I disagree - but you might not see my point. Thing is, I regard Augustus as something of a successful dictator in the modern sense, a man who has managed to overcome criticism and any potential threats and makes great efforts to appear a benign ruler. He is in other words putting on a public act. Now I know there are people who will disagree with that - fair enough - but follow the arguement. You have a man who ahcieves a great reputation, both by deed and propaganda (not to mention a lot of help from others), so the man who follows him would have to be pretty exceptional to be seen in the same terms. Who could have possibly put Augustus in the shade? There is a train of thought that says such a man as Augustus would deliberately choose a worse man to follow him in order to remembered in favourable terms. Augustus was certainly capable of acting in that fashion, and lets remember he was keen to keep Claudius under wraps. However, he also had the misfortune to lose family members who would have been groomed to follow him, and for all his faults, I think Augustus actually did want the empire to be a success after him.

[Octavia]

I agree that Augustus ran the empire well and that he wanted it to be ran well after his death. I think it was ran well with Tiberius until Sajanus started putting to death people that were innoscent and plotting other things.

[caldrail]

It is pretty obvious that Sejanus wanted power in Rome, and was using Tiberius's authority to achieve it. Tiberius was a funny sort of guy, he just didn't seem to like people, something of a loner? When Sejanus offers to take away some of the strain of leadership, Tiberius is only too willing to let him have it. Was the empire run badly under the Tiberius/Sejanus regime? Its true that many leading romans were eliminated from competition at that time, but that doesn't mean the empire was being badly run, although one does wonder if the loss of talent at the top was starting to make itself felt. By this time, I think, the empire was running on momentum quite happily. Had things been allowed to continue of course, Sejanus would have assumed control and I suspect he had a fair ability in organisation, albeit a reign that might have ended quickly as did with other tyrannical emperors.

[Ingsoc]

There is an article by Jane Bellemore dealing with Livillia death, base on an inscription that mention that the wife of Sejanus committed suicide eight days after his execution Bellemore identify this wife as Livilla and claim that Sejanus married her against Tiberius wishes as a mean to counter Caligula growing influence and when the emperor learn of this union he moved against Sejanus and had the couple eliminated.

[GJC]

I moved this reply to another thread. It was a bit off topic. My apologies.

Edited April 17, 2009 by GJC

[sylla]

There is an article by Jane Bellemore dealing with Livillia death, base on an inscription that mention that the wife of Sejanus committed suicide eight days after his execution Bellemore identify this wife as Livilla and claim that Sejanus married her against Tiberius wishes as a mean to counter Caligula growing influence and when the emperor learn of this union he moved against Sejanus and had the couple eliminated.

Thanks for this nice piece of scholar research.

 

The relevant fragment of the Fasti Ostiensis depicts chronologically the deaths of five members of Sejanus' family across the late 31 AD; the third one, presumably Sejanus' wife (name erased, traditionally considered as "Apicata") commited suicide VII Kalendas November (October 26), after Sejanus himself and his older son Strabo, but before the younger children, contradicting so the only surviving report by Dio (58.11) of the children's death as the cause of Apicata's suicide. The traditional interpretation has been that Dio simply erred, a relatively common occurrence judging by the comparative parallel analysis with Tacitus' Annals.

 

Ms. Bellemore suggests that the cognomen Apicata couldn't have been inscribed in the Fasti, mainly because it is too long (but even if that was the case; why not in an abbreviated form? Or just her Nomen? -possibly Gavia-) and also because Tacitus indicated Sejanus divorced Apicata eight years before (but Tacitus himself called Apicata Sejanus' wife in later quotes, not to mention Dio and others).

 

Discarding Apicata, the author considers Livia's ("Livilla") name must have been there: Ms. B supports her thesis quoting plenty of textual references regarding Sejanus and Livia's desire to marry each other (but not one stating that they actually did it). Finally, Cassius Dio must now be wrong about Livia's demise.

 

IMHO, a fascinating but hardly tenable hypothesis; too scarce evidence for quite an extraordinary claim. The traditional parsimonious interpretation is far more plausible.

[Ingsoc]

Ms. Bellemore suggests that the cognomen Apicata couldn't have been inscribed in the Fasti, mainly because it is too long (but even if that was the case; why not in an abbreviated form? Or just her Nomen? -possibly Gavia-) and also because Tacitus indicated Sejanus divorced Apicata eight years before (but Tacitus himself called Apicata Sejanus' wife in later quotes, not to mention Dio and others).

 

I think we need to distinguish between literacy sources like Tacitus and Cassius Dio and official records like the fasti. while it's possible that a divorce wife would still be called a wife in the former (it's really depend on the style of the author) I think it's unlikely to happened in the later since they are considered public records and as such would probably record the legal marital status of a person.

 

In our case Apicatia was divorced from Sejanus for a few years and there wasn't any doubt about her marital status.

[sylla]

I think we need to distinguish between literacy sources like Tacitus and Cassius Dio and official records like the fasti. while it's possible that a divorce wife would still be called a wife in the former (it's really depend on the style of the author) I think it's unlikely to happened in the later since they are considered public records and as such would probably record the legal marital status of a person.

 

In our case Apicatia was divorced from Sejanus for a few years and there wasn't any doubt about her marital status.

There are many potential alternatives that we simply can't exclude; for example:

Was Apicata really divorced? Couldn't Tacitus have erred or his text been corrupted? Couldn't Sejanus and Apicata have just re-married?

Why were the Sejanii inscribed in the Fasti Ostiensis to begin with? They lived and died in Rome. Were the Ostians aware of Apicata's civil status? Even more, what do we know about public records' style?

The traditionally restored phrase is "...APICATA SEIANI..."; did this formula really imply a fortiori that they were still married? Is there no other explanation? As far as I know, "Seiani" simply stated a conexion with Sejanus. How should a divorced and still unmarried woman be called? Shouldn

Edited April 18, 2009 by sylla

[sylla]

Women's cognomina were quite uncommon at any time, and they seem to have had few or none fixed rules; they could have been derived from their paternal (or even maternal) cognomen, from their husband's nomen or cognomen, or even from personal peculiarities.

 

For example, the famous empress Poppaea Sabina used the nomen and cognomen from her maternal grandfather in official epigraphy, even being a widow, after a previous divorce (from Otho) and of course after marrying Nero..

 

The name "Apicata" might have been a cognomen by itself, if her father was indeed from the Apicia gens, like the famous gourmet Marcus Gavius (or Gabius) Apicius; so her full name might very well have been at some time Gavia Apicata Sejana.

 

Nowhere have I found any hint that deleting the (rarely acquired) husband's cognomen was considered regular or required practice for divorced women at any time.