#auth: anthony a. barrett

[ducavalentinos]

“[...]In a famous passage of Suetonius, we are told that Caligula’s favourite expression for his great-grandmother was Ulixes stolatus (Ulysses in a stola). The allusion appears in a section that supposedly illustrates Caligula’s disdain for his relatives. But his allusion to Livia is surely a witty and ironical expression of admiration. Ulysses is a familiar Homeric hero, who in the Iliad and Odyssey displays the usual heroic qualities of nerve and courage, but is above all polymetis: clever, crafty, ingenious, a man who will often sort his way through a crisis not by the usual heroic bravado but by outsmarting his opponents, whether the one-eyed giant Polyphemus, or the enchantress Circe, or the suitors for Penelope. Caligula implied that Livia had the clever, subtle kind of mind that one associates with Greeks rather than Romans, who were inclined to take a head-on approach to problems. But at the same time she manifested a particularly Roman quality. Rolfe, in the Loeb translation of Suetonius’ Life of Caligula, rendered the phrase as “Ulysses in petticoats” to suggest a female version of the Homeric character. But this is to rob Caligula’s sobriquet of much of its force. The stola was essentially the female equivalent of the toga worn by Roman men. [...]Bartman may be right in suggesting that the existence of statues of Livia in a stola would have given Caligula’s quip a special resonance, but that alone would not have inspired his bon mot. To Caligula’s eyes, Livia was possessed of a sharp and clever mind. But she did not allow this quality to obtrude because she recognised that many Romans would not find it appealling; she cloakedit with all the sober dignity and propriety, the gravitas, that the Romans admired in themselves and saw represented in the stola.” Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, Anthony A. Barrett. @elcctra 

[go-redgirl]

Trump Closes In on Supreme Court Pick; 3 Judges Top List

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is closing in on his next Supreme Court nominee, with three federal judges leading the competition to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.Trump’s top contenders for the vacancy at this time are federal appeals judges Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge, said a person familiar with Trump’s thinking who was not auth Read More

[ducavalentinos]

[...]Julia was a woman of considerable intelligence, with a good knowledge of literature and a love of well-informed and amusing company. But she was self-willed and held her own idiosyncratic views on what was socially acceptable.

Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, Anthony A. Barrett.

[ducavalentinos]

“Augustus addressed his wife affectionately as mea Livia” Whenever Barrett, or any other author really, starts talking about them I just want to cry ok.

[ducavalentinos]

“Probably the most familiar imperial memoirs, and potentially the most important in the present context, are those of Agrippina the Younger, now lost. We do know that they were available. Tacitus, under the year AD 26, cites information he found in her commentarii, where she left a record for later generations “of her own life and of the misfortunes of her family” -quae Neronis principis mater vitam suam et casus suorum posteris memoravit. The item in question involved the request of her mother, Agrippina the Elder, for permission from Tiberius to remarry. As further evidence of the neglect of imperial memoirs, Tacitus pointed out that this information had been overlooked by all other historians (scriptores annalium). In fact, in the extant record only one other citation seems to originate from Agrippina’s memoirs: Pliny the Elder records that Nero was delivered by a breach birth. It is far from certain when Agrippina put together the memoirs. When Tacitus alludes to her authorship he describes her as mater Neronis, but he may not necessarily mean that Nero was already born when she wrote them. (He was born, almost certainly, in 37). Scholarly views on this question vary. Some argued that Agrippina wrote them during Claudius’ reign, when planning Nero’s succession, and even used them as propaganda to balance Messalina’s hostility. In this case the text would presumably have ended at the point of when Agrippina became Claudius’s wife. Most scholars, however, have Agrippina imitating Cicero, making use of her forced absence from political activities after 55 to engage in writing.” Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, Anthony A. Barrett.

[ducavalentinos]

“One such document is in the form of a letter from Augustus to the people of the island of Samos, in response to their petition for free status. In turning down their petition (he eventually allowed it, in 20–19), Augustus explains that he is not disposed to grant freedom without good cause, and notes that he has allowed such a privilege to no community other than Aphrodisias (which explains why they had the text on display). His objection was not to the consequent loss of tribute, in that freedom would grant them exemption from taxes, but rather to the indiscriminate handing out of such entitlements. Augustus clearly feels embarrassed at refusing the request. He notes that he is well disposed to the Samians, but even more remarkably he says that he would like to please his wife, who has been most energetic on their behalf. This reveals two aspects of Livia (Scribonia can be ruled out as the unnamed wife) and her relationship with her husband. It shows that she was prepared to act as the patron for a community and to intercede on its behalf with the emperor. It shows also that the level of collaboration between Augustus and Livia was so well established that he felt obliged to apologise in public when he was unable to accede to her requests.” Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, Anthony A. Barrett.

[ducavalentinos]

Although Livia did not intrude in matters that were strictly within her husband’s domain, her restraint naturally did not bar communication with her husband. Certainly, Augustus was prepared to listen to her. That their conversation were not casual matters and were taken seriously by him is demonstratred by the evidence of Suetonius that Augustus treated her just as he would an important official. When dealing with a significant item of business, he would write things out beforehand and read out to her from a notebook, because he could not be sure to get it just right if he spoke extemporaneously.

Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, Anthony A. Barrett.

[ducavalentinos]

“Seneca called Livia a maxima femina. But did she hold any real power outside the home? According to Dio, Livia believed that she did not, and claimed that her influence over Augustus lay in her willingness to concede whatever he wished, not meddling in his business, and pretending not to be aware of any of his sexual affairs. Tacitus reflects this when he calls her an uxor facilis (accommodatin wife). She clearly understood that to achieve any objective she had to avoid any overt conflict with her husband. It would do a disservice to Livia, however, to create the impression that she was successful simply because she yielded. She was a skilful tactician who knew how to manipulate people, often by identifying their weaknesses or ambitions, and she knew how to conceal her own feelings when the occasion demanded: cum artibus mariti, simulatione filii bene composita (well suited to the craft of her husband and the insincerity of her son) is how Tacitus morosely characterises that talent. Augustus felt that he controlled her, and she doubtless was happy for him to think so. Dio has preserved an account of a telling exchange between Augustus and a group of senators. When they asked him to introduce legislation to control what was seen as the dissolute moral behaviour of Romans, he told them that there were aspects of human behavior that could not be regulated. He advised them to do what he did, and have more control over their wives. When the senators heard this they were suprised, to say the least, and pressed Augustus with more questions to find out how he was able to control Livia. He confined himself to some general comments about dress and conduct in public, and seems to have been oblivious to his audience’s scepticism. What is especially revealing about this incident is that the senators were fully aware of the power of Livia’s personality, but recognised that she conducted herself in such a way that Augustus obviously felt no threat whatsoever to his authority.” Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, Anthony A. Barrett.

[ducavalentinos]

“Suetonius has preserved extracts from three letters written by Augustus to his wife which show that Livia had assumed a general charge for Claudius. Augustus clearly wanted to evade any responsibilities in the matter, stressing in his letters that Claudius is Livia’s grandson. The first extract indicates that Livia had asked her husband to speak to Tiberius about what should be done with Claudius at the games of Mars Ultor, celebrated in AD 12. Augustus felt that the family should come to a final decision about whether the young man was fit to be advanced. The letter shows clearly that Livia had made some specific request on behalf of her grandson and indicates that despite her supposed contempt for him, she was prepared to make an effort to help him towards some limited progress. Augustus was willing to go along with her suggestion that he be allowed to take part in the banquet of the priests, provided someone was there to make sure that he behaved himself. But the emperor drew the line at two other suggestions. He refused to allow Claudius to take a seat in the imperial box at the circus -he did not want to risk public embarrassment. He was also opposed to the idea of his taking part in the ceremonies in the Latin festival, either in Rome or on the Alban mount. It is interesting that he gives her leave, if she should so wish, to show that part of the letter to Antonia, Claudius’s mother, who thus was recognised as having a legitimate interest but not the final responsability in the matter. Livia also seems to have been concerned that there be proper supervision of Claudius during her absences, for in a second letter Augustus promises to invite him to dinner every day while she is away. Finally, in the third extract Augustus acknowledges that no matter how awkward his conversation in private, when it came to public speaking, Claudius could declaim splendidly. What is especially striking about this last passage is that its positive tone suggests strongly that it is just what Livia wanted to hear.” Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, Anthony A. Barrett.

[ducavalentinos]

[Livia] found herself, as did all Romans, in an unparalleled situation, with no precedent to guide her. She was the first “first lady” -she had to establish the model to emulate, and later imperial wives would to no small degree be judged implicitly by comparison to her. Her success in masking her keen political instincts and subordinating them to an image of self-restraint and discretion was to a considerable degree her own achievement.

Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, Anthony A. Barrett.

[ducavalentinos]

“The opportune demise of the two princes inevitably aroused suspicions. Pliny speaks of the whispering campaign that followed (incusatae liberorum mortes). Dio reports that Livia was suspected of causing both deaths, particularly because they followed Tiberius’ return from Rhodes. Tacitus, once again in a blatant appeal to deep-seated prejudices, uses a familiar technique, saying that they died either by the simple working of fate or because the trickery of their stepmother, Livia, carried them off. He does not expand on this last suggestion, and offers no evidence, but succeeds in planting the seeds of suspicion. The idea seems implausible. Although some sort of plot was not logistically impossible, the complications of arranging poisoning at a great distance should arouse more than the usual scepticism about such charges. It would be stretching the record to the length of incredulity to suggest that Livia had been in league with Addon, especially given that Gaius exposed himself recklessly just before he was wounded, and that the effect of the wound was aggravated by his delicate physical condition. Moreover, there is no indication that anyone on the spot in the entourage of either Gaius or Lucius had any reason whatsoever at the time to suspect foul play by Livia. It is likely that the stories that arose later about Livia’s secret plan to poison Germanicus at a distance have been grafted onto these earlier events. Suetonius at any rate voices no suspicions.” Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, Anthony A. Barrett.

[ducavalentinos]

Livia’s energies would have been channelled mainly into her role as wife of Augustus and as mother of Tiberius. We know little of her private interests, or of how she tried to relax.[…]After Tiberius’s birth she seems to have consulted as astrologer (mathematicus), Scribonius. He was able to forecast that her son would govern, but without the trappings of monarchical rule, an especially impressive performance, because he anticipated this before the principate had been established and before Livia had even met Augustus. But this kind of behavior should be viewed in the context of its age, and Livia was probably no more unsophisticated in such matters than the great mass of her contemporaries. Otherwise her interests are likely to have been more serious, and she seems to have been a literate and educated woman. At any rate, in one of his letters to her Augustus quotes frequently and extensively in Greek, presumably on the assumption that she would understand him. She did of course spend some time in the Greek world during the period of her first husband’s exile, but she would at that time have moved mainly in a Latin-speaking milieu. It is more than likely that she learned the language through formal tuition.

Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, Anthony A. Barrett.

[ducavalentinos]

This story....😂😂😂

[ducavalentinos]

“[...]In the eyes of the world, Livia succeeded in carrying out her role of model wife to perfection. To some degree she owned her success to circumstances. It is instructive to compare her situation with that of the other women of the imperial house. Julia (born 39 BC) summed up her own attitude perfectly when taken to task for her extravagant behaviour and told to conform more closely to Augustus’s simple tastes. She responded that he could forget that he was Augustus, but she could not forget that she was Augustus’s daughter. Julia’s daughter, the elder Agrippina, like her mother before her, saw herself a key element in her grandfather’s dynastic scheme. She was married to the popular Germanicus and had no doubt that in the fullness of time she would provide a princeps of Augustan blood. Not suprisingly, she became convinced that she had a fundamental role to play in Rome’s future, and she bitterly resented Tiberius’ elevation. Her daughter Agrippina the Younger (born AD 15?) was, as a child, indoctrinated by her mother to see herself as the destined transmitter of Augustus’ blood, and her whole adult life was devoted to fulfilling her mother’s frustrated mission. From birth these women would have known no life other than one of dynastic entitlement. By contrast, Livia’s background, although far from humble, was not exceptional for a woman of her class, and she did not enter her novel situation with inherited baggage. As a Claudian she may no doubt have been brought up to display a certain hauteur, but she would not have anticipated a special role in the state. As a member of a distinguished republican family, she would have hoped at most for a “good” marriage to a man who could aspire to property and prestige, perhaps at best able to exercise a marginal influence on events through a husband in a high but temporary magistracy. Powerful women who served their apprenticeships during the republic reached their eminence by their own inclinations, energies, and ambitions, not because they felt they had fallen heir to it.” Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, Anthony A. Barrett. @elcctra 

[ducavalentinos]

“For the historian of the ancient world the undertaking is difficult enough at the best of times, because truth about any individual who lived some two thousand years ago must, by its very nature, be an elusive entity. But Livia poses a particular challenge. Robert Graves, whose two novels about the imperial family were the basis for the television series, might well have defended the integrity of his portrait by pleading that it rests on impeccable historial foundations, and that he took his lead from Rome’s premier historian, Tacitus. But that argument has suprisingly little merit in this specific case. Livia achieves the near-impossible, for she forces us to shift our traditional allegiance and accept the authority not of the normally magisterial Tacitus but of ancient sources whose historical reliability is by and large seriously suspect: Dio, often naive and uncritical; Suetonius, incapable of resisting spicy anecdotes; and Seneca, invariably sycophantic or denigratory, whichever profited him most. On this one topic it is generally recognised that Tacitus was the weak brother, his portrait of Livia vitiated by both his deep-seated contempt for the Julio-Claudian family and by his unshakable conviction that the ambitious woman was evil incarnate. The historical Livia was a much more complex individual than the cold-blooded schemer that Graves created for I, Claudius or that Tacitus created for his Annals. The simple fact that she survived intact and unscathed for more than sixty years at the very heart of Roman power —and, perhaps more remarkably, was revered and admired for many generations more after her death— is a testament to her adroit ability to win support, sympathy and even affection of her contemporaries. Livia could thus be called Rome’s first lady in the broad sense, in that no Roman woman before or after her succeeded in invoking a deeper or more long-lasting respect and devotion. [...]Perhaps most impressively, she achieved this even though her status and position were never properly defined. Livia is the link between the two reigns that established the basic pattern of government for the Roman empire for the next four centuries." Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, Anthony A. Barrett.

[ducavalentinos]

“The murder of Caligula and the way Claudius attained the accession are familiar to us for their anecdotal qualities. Perhaps because we are inured to the usurpations of the later Roman empire the contemporary impact of Claudius’s putsch has generally been unappreciated. It was undoutedly less accidental than the sources tend to indicate, and he was surely to some degree at least personally responsible for the turn of events, even though there was an attempt to keep his role secret. Claudius had in fact seized power by military force and throughout his reign was conscious of the danger that he could be removed in the same manner. The praetorian tribune, Chaerea, the supposed ring-leader of the plot against Caligula, was put to death. At least one of the praetorian prefects had been involved. They were too dangerous to be left in office, and were dismissed, to be replaced by new men. [...]Claudius’ task in confirming his position with the military, while immediate and urgent, would prove less complex than his relationship with the senate, a problem that would not be solved until his marriage with Agrippina. The principate from the outset meant a loss of privilege and power for the senatorial order. But it was a loss in which they generally acquiesced. In the case of the accession of Tiberius and Caligula, and of Nero later, the process by which his power was conferred by the senate on a single individual was specious if not fraudulent. In Claudius’ case the offence to the body politic was much greater, since even the formality of acquiescence was absent from what was blatantly a coup d’etat, carried out in an atmosphere of hostility and betrayal. Far from acclaiming the new princeps, the senators began by declaring him a hostis. After his accession he did not enter the senate chamber for thirty days, and when he did he was accompanied by a bodyguard.”

Anthony A. Barrett, Agrippina: Sex, Power and Politics in the Early Empire.