Imperial Women: A Woman’s Way to Security

Murderous intent dripping from every pore of an olive toned Roman woman. Her soft glare giving away nothing. A mere murmur to the emperor holds so much meaning that those around them wonder who might be killed off next if they displease her. Imperial women were expected to be prim and proper. Upkeep their home and spin wool such as Livia did for Augustus around 37/38 BCE. According to Women of the imperial households Livia gladly did everything Augustus approved of and did not meddle with his affairs.[1] Women were usually under the direct control of their husbands, if not then they would be seen as transgressors, defiant to the social norms such as Agrippina the Younger. The histories of both women although few offer an insight as to how imperial women affected the Julio-Claudian reign of the early Roman Empire and how society either constrained women to certain roles or liberated them. Livia and Agrippina will be used as examples of how imperial women in the Julio-Claudian dynasty were able to obtain power whether it was subtly as in Livia’s case or more outright like Agrippina while still constrained to the female ideal in Roman society.

Women had but two goals in life in Roman society. To marry and bare children without either they would in my opinion be deemed as failures and a burden to their families. “Every girl [regardless of class] was taught from the youngest age that marriage was the future to be expected and desired.”[2] The topic must have been especially stressed to girls of the elite families as their fathers or brothers likely did not want to bear the brunt of the responsibilities for the woman’s future. The men would have been responsible for these women should they have unsuccessful marriages or none at all and it would prove more advantageous to marry off a daughter or sister to someone of higher status to forge alliances for the benefit of the families. Women were used as pawns but were not discouraged to serve their purpose because they understood should they have a successful marriage their sense of security would be meant for the remainder of their lives (or their husbands). The desire for marriage and children was so deeply embedded into the girls and women’s psyche that “they had no inkling [to] ever conceive a world different from the one they were born into [or the one they would marry into].”[3] However, I believe the advantage of having this idea embedded into their psyche is that they now could gain an upper hand over the men in their lives such as in the case of Livia or Agrippina. It is important to note that “children were a protection”[4] for the women in that they now had the ear of their husbands and were able to put forth their opinions for consideration whether for political affairs or private ones. Children especially male ones secured a woman’s place as they would be heirs to the emperors should they live on to adulthood. But keep in mind that although women could have successful marriages and provide children they were still “expected to accept their husband’s faults… [if not it] could easily threaten the property and well-being of the family’s children.”[5] On top of the pressure of the possibility of husbands who could be unfaithful girls and women were still “[to] do the spinning, weave [the] fabric, [and] take on all the other domestic tasks”[6] in the household. This allowed women “[to be] praised for their modesty, excellence, moral uprightness, and loyalty”[7] as they were then considered good wives in the eyes of society. If elite women did not adhere to such roles they were considered to have too much power or wicked.

Although imperial women were expected to live up to this standard it was not always possible since slaves were common in the household. The use of slaves meant that menial tasks[8] such as such as spinning, weaving and other domestic duties were delegated to them allowing the imperial women to take on other duties such as entertaining guests or becoming advisors to the men, in this case the emperors or emperors to be. As Susan Fischler noted in her writing Social Stereotypes and Historical Analysis, the ideal that imperial women lived up to still served its purpose although it was modified since they had to consider the daily needs of existence.[9] The purpose as an advisor and patron to those in the imperial household was a highly important one as it could affect many people’s lives in the course of an emperor’s reign. Imperial women held power within the household so long as they did not step on the toes of the given emperor. For example, Livia in her “capacity as matresfamilia of the imperial family… [was] renowned for looking after senatorial families” such as M. Salvius Otho “[who] became a senator through the influence of Livia Augusta.”[10] This shows that she was able to exert significant power without the consent or the watchful eye of the emperor. Livia would then have the ability to save multiple children without second guessing whether or not she needed permission because she was trusted and valued enough by Augustus to make decisions that would have benefited the State. Now because of this Livia was seen as a matronly figure who was seen as the epitome of a Roman woman. She was virtuous, modest, excellent and loyal thus allowing her to be voted “an arch because she had saved so many, reared so many senatorial children, and provide so many dowries for senators’ daughters.”[11] However, later when Livia’s son Tiberius became emperor he frequently admonished her “ not to meddle with weighty affairs, and such as did not suit her sex”[12] putting her position at odds from the one she had with Augustus. Tiberius proved to be less of a rule breaker than his stepfather and sided more with the republican leaning Senate in that women should be subservient to their husbands and guardians than be allowed to wield power. Interestingly enough during Augustus’ reign he put measures into place that would allow women, most especially Livia to have more freedom. Under Augustus marriage laws he “released women of legal guardianship [if they had] three children.”[13] While Livia did not have three children there was some leeway provided for her. These laws provided Livia with freedoms that she would not have otherwise not had. “She was given the right to administer her estate without supervision by a guardian and [had] public statues of herself dedicated [in her name].[14] At his death Augustus she was even left a third of his estate allowing her to maintain a sense of independence from her son. Additionally, Augustus desired that she assume his name[15] gaining her a sense of status in Roman society that no other woman had. With the name Augusta she would be seen as a powerful woman something Tiberius was not inclined to agree with. As mentioned above he had more republican leanings and made sure that his mother would not obtain the power that she was given. According to Suetonius, Tiberius was often “harassed by his mother, Livia, who claimed an equal share in the government with him, he frequently avoided seeing her”[16] thus leading to stripping her of whatever power she may hold, of whatever titles she may be given, and of isolating himself from her. It appears that he knew how powerful his mother could be as he could have experienced the influence she had over Augustus. Men often did not like to have women take control as it was effeminate and looked now upon.

Those who wield power can hold control over various aspects of one’s life or others. With power one can claim dominance and respect among a group a people. Without it you are nothing but with it you can be anything. Men hold power to great esteem. Power over women was shown to be of great importance in Roman society. It meant that they kept their household in working order. If for any reason a man’s power was in doubt whether it be over their wife, daughter or female slave then the man’s integrity came into question. Was he fit to rule his home? Was he fit to rule a country? A woman who could inflict her power over a man was deemed wicked. She who could convince a man to do her bidding was immoral and had no right to continue living in his home. Often women were banished and left to starve such as Julia the Elder or Agrippina. Although the latter fared better when she was recalled by her uncle. The banishment of elite women was of course to lessen the effect that women had in the imperial court. It must have been an embarrassment to men, most importantly the Senate to see imperial women such as Livia and Agrippina control different aspects of the household and politics. Personally, women gaining the ability of power does seem frightful to many as the fear of the unknown can come into play. Women have hardly been known to hold a significant amount of power because they are not deemed worthy or capable. Which is unfortunate as they are never given the benefit of the doubt. My interpretation of Augustus and Livia’s relationship is that he did entrust her with power whether it was significant enough to change the political dynamics or not.

Within the household, both Livia and Agrippina were able to exert power over their husbands by “[raising] up fine children, who [were] the light of [their] lives.”[17] Both Livia and Agrippina could have been attempting to further their sons’ careers in ways that would have benefited their (Nero and Tiberius) futures. However, in gaining the status of emperor the women would have gained a higher status in Roman society thus ensuring that these women would be viewed as the ideal Roman woman. It would be ideal for a woman to want the best for her children but in a society where a mortality rate was so high it seems it would be most advantageous to think of oneself to obtain all the wealth and titles that would allow for a future that is stable. However, should the children survive into adulthood then it would prove best for the mother to provide for them as I would like to believe Agrippina did for Nero according to Suetonius, she was ready “sacrifice every principle virtue in pursuit of supreme power.”[18] In all truth, it seems likely that “Agrippina married her uncle, Claudius, to optimize the chances of her son Nero becoming Claudius’ successor”[19] even though sources such as Tacitus and Suetonius claim that Claudius wanted the marriage himself but as a mother Agrippina needed an advantage for her son and the marriage proved as much. Agrippina “possessed a wife’s power.”[20] Wives hold a significant amount of power over their husbands should they possess a stable and trusting relationship with each other. In the case of Livia, they had a mutual understanding that allowed for Augustus to do as he pleased while she kept her distance. However, there was a fear that imperial women could take control of the state and that would be seen as a “[violation of the] the primary functions of the emperor thereby infringing upon his duty to the state and suggesting that power lay outside the emperor himself.”[21]

Unfortunately, Agrippina the Younger was looked down upon by the men in the Senate because she held a lot of control over her husband, Claudius and her son, Nero (when he came into power). It was a common belief that women were meant to be submissive to their husbands if they were to be good wives and in turn submissive to the men who would later oversee them (guardians). The lack of control husbands and their guarantors had over them meant that the men even the emperors were seen as either failures or weaklings who were unable to fulfil their duties to the traditional Roman society thus not setting a good accepting to the public. Public image meant everything to men and for a woman to break that mold would have been embarrassing. Personally, it goes to show that the male ego has been fragile since the beginning of human civilization (or documented human civilization) and the thought of women breaking preconceived notions of what we should and should not do have always hurt their egos. “Women who are perceived as having gained access to power are seen as having failed to conform to the accepted social construct for their gender in their given society.”[22] However, I think that the ability for the emperors Augustus and Claudius to accept the advice and opinions of their wives whether or not they actually used it goes to show they were revolutionary in their way of thinking and did not completely submit to the preconceived notions of what women should and should not do. They allowed Livia and Agrippina the Younger to have some freedoms and whether this led to their demise is left to be interpreted. The women although at times considered wicked because of the power they had over their husbands could be viewed as trying to find a sense of security for themselves and their children. Women had to find a way to make ends meet whether they were elite or poor. Elite women, however, had a greater chance of making pieces fall into place and make life work for their advantage. If gaining power meant the chance of survival, then why not. Power is almost always tied to men. Women can grasp it but never hold it for too long. If they do then they are greedy. Historians such as Cassius Dio paint Agrippina as a woman hungry for power who could create emperors.[23] Agrippina as well as Livia are both willing to poison the emperors for power as noted by several historians or at least hinted at but in my opinion is not well substantiated.

Could power be used as a means for survival? Definitely. Elite women, especially Livia and Agrippina had the ears of the emperors and future heirs that allowed them to garner some power over the State. Such power although looked down upon by other elite men such as the Senate was beneficial in securing a comfortable life for these women after their husbands passed away. Their power may have waned when their sons came into power but in the case of Livia, she was still revered as she was considered the epitome of a Roman woman. She was loyal and chaste to her husband. She understood her place even when her son thought she did not. She gave off the impression to society that she was even with power still the Roman ideal of a woman regardless of the power she held. Her power granted her some freedom and security. Whether it was granted was left to Tiberius to decide. Agrippina, however, was left to a different fate. She was wicked. She held far too much control over her husband and her son. Assuming political decisions stemmed from her meant that she exercised much power and her sense of security was great. Because of this her fate was set and she was not greeted with great respect by the Senate or her son. She had no fault for wanting power. Women of elite blood should be entitled to some power. They were married off for alliances. Why should they not benefit of such a marriage? Is it fair that the fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons be the ones to gain all the success and power? Personally, no. The Julio-Claudian dynasty was an interesting one because of the women that were involved in its affairs whether they were subservient or not. The power at play went back and forth. Never really resting in the hands of male or female but always remaining ambiguous.

…

[1] Women of the imperial households, “Livia”.

[2] Lives of their own: ordinary women, 54.

[3] Ibid, 52.

[4] Ibid, 80.

[5] Lives of their own: ordinary women, 58.

[6] Ibid, 50.

[7] Ibid, 51.

[8] Susan Fischler, ”Social Stereotypes and Historical Analysis: The Case of the Imperial Women at Rome”, 117.

[9] Ibid, 117.

[10] Fischler, ”Social Stereotypes and Historical Analysis”, 123–4.

[11] Ibid, 124.

[12] Suetonius, Lives, “Tiberius,” 50.

[13] Augustus Marriage Legislation, 21.

[14] Women of the imperial household, 20.

[15] Suetonius, Lives, “Augustus,” 98, Retrieved March 12, 2020. http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinSept18&getid=1&query=Suet.%20Aug

[16] Suetonius, Lives, “Tiberius,” 50, Retrieved March 12, 2020. http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinSept18&getid=1&query=Suet.%20Tib

[17] Lives of their own: ordinary women, 50.

[18] Suetonius, Nero, in “Twelve Caesars,” (DigiReads, 2011), 232.

[19] Women of the imperial household, 27.

[20] Tacitus, Annales, 12.3, Retrieved March 12, 2020. http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinSept18&getid=1&query=Tac.%20Ann.%2012

[21] Fischler, ”Social Stereotypes and Historical Analysis”, 125.

[22] Fischler, ”Social Stereotypes and Historical Analysis”, 116.

[23] Ibid, 122.