Vesta and Julio-Claudian Women in Imperial Propaganda After Caligula's Accession to the Throne in Ad 37, Numerous Honours Were
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VESTA AND JULIO-CLAUDIAN WOMEN IN IMPERIAL PROpagaNDA Abstract: Modern scholars have often presupposed a deliberate attempt of the Julio-Claudian house, starting with Augustus, to consti- tute an active involvement of female relatives in the cult of Vesta, turning these women in ‘honorary Vestals’ or pseudo-priestesses. As many of these assumptions have taken root in modern scholarship and, more importantly, often constitute a premise for other research, it is necessary to separate fact from fiction. After Caligula’s accession to the throne in AD 37, numerous honours were bestowed on his relatives in an attempt to undo the harm that was done to his father Germanicus, his mother Agrippina Maior and his brothers Drusus and Nero during Tiberius’ reign. In doing so, Caligula distanced himself from his predecessor, strengthened his position as a ruler and emphasized the promise of the just reign that was about to begin. Caligula’s living female relatives — his grandmother Antonia Minor and his sisters Drusilla, Livilla and Agrippina Minor — held an extraordinary public position in the beginning of his reign, which was mirrored by the privileges they received. These are described in the accounts of both Suetonius and Cassius Dio.1 The earliest account in Suetonius’ Life of Caligula states that besides honouring his deceased parents, the emperor also awarded various privileges to his male and female relatives: Post haec Antoniae aviae, quidquid umquam Livia Augusta honorum cepisset, uno senatus consulto congessit; patruum Claudium, equitem R. ad id tempus, collegam sibi in consulatu assumpsit; fratrem Tibe- rium die virilis togae adoptavit appellavitque principem iuventutis. De sororibus auctor fuit, ut omnibus sacramentis adiceretur: “Neque me liberosque meos cariores habebo quam Gaium habeo et sorores eius”; item relationibus consulum: “Quod bonum felixque sit C. Caesari sororibusque eius.” (Suet. Cal. 15.2-3) After this, by a single decree of the senate, he heaped upon his grand- mother Antonia whatever honours Livia Augusta had ever enjoyed; took his uncle Claudius, who up to that time had been a Roman knight, as his colleague in the consulship; adopted his brother Tibe- rius on the day that he assumed the gown of manhood, and gave him 1 Suet. Cal. 15.2-3; Dio 59.3.4-5. Unfortunately, Tacitus’ account in his Annals is lost. Ancient Society 45, 187-204. doi: 10.2143/AS.45.0.3110547 © 2015 by Ancient Society. All rights reserved. 98256.indb 187 9/11/15 14:35 188 L. FOUBERT the title of Prince of the Youth. He caused the names of his sisters to be included in all oaths: “And I will not hold myself and my children dearer than I do Gaius and his sisters”; as well as in the propositions of the consuls: “Favour and good fortune attend Gaius Caesar and his sisters.”2 In his third century account of this period, Cassius Dio lists the honours which the emperor bestowed on Antonia and her granddaughters as follows: Ταύτην τε γὰρ Αὔγουστάv τε εὐθὺς καὶ ἱέρειαν τοῦ Αὐγούστου ἀποδείξας πάντα αὐτῇ καθάπαξ, ὅσα ταῖς ἀειπαρθένοις ὑπάρχει, ἔδωκε, καὶ ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς ταῦτά τε τὰ τῶν ἀειπαρθένων καὶ τὸ τὰς ἱπποδρομίας οἱ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ προεδρίᾳ συνθεᾶσθαι, τό τε τάς τε εὐχὰς τὰς κατ’ ἔτος ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἱερέων ὑπέρ τε ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ δημοσίου ποιουμένας καὶ τοὺς ὅρκους τοὺς ἐς τὴν ἀρχὴν αἰτοῦ φέροντας καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐκείνων ὁμοίως γίγνεσθαι ἔνειμε. (Dio 59.3.4) His grandmother he immediately saluted as Augusta, and appointed her to be priestess of Augustus, granting to her at once all the privi- leges of the Vestal Virgins. To his sisters he assigned these privileges of the Vestal Virgins, also that of witnessing the games in the Circus with him from the imperial seats, and the right to have uttered in their behalf, also, not only the prayers annually offered by the magistrates and priests for his welfare and that of the State, but also the oaths of allegiance that were sworn to his rule. Dio’s text has prompted scholars to assume that the cult of Vesta and its priestesses were closely intertwined with the imperial family. Some were led to believe that Caligula’s policy turned his female relatives into ‘honorary Vestals’, by which they often ignored the difference between Dio’s phrasing and that of Suetonius.3 As to what it implies to be an ‘honorary Vestal’, the same scholars have been less clear. Does this mean that Caligula’s grandmother and sisters enjoyed the rights of the Vestals but not the duties? The astonishment of one scholar that these women were no virgins at all but married women and even mothers, in 2 Translations are taken from the Loeb Classical Library editions. 3 Modern scholarship has not produced an in-depth study on the relationship between imperial women and the Vestal Virgins or the cult of Vesta. Nevertheless, the term ‘hon- orary Vestals’ has found its way into studies on a variety of related subjects, see for instance Balsdon (1962) 116; Sutherland (1971) 108-109; Griffin (1984) 26; Wood (1995) 458; Wood (1999) 82; Wood (2010) 46; Shotter (20052) 11; Burns (2007) 59. See also Hidalgo de la Vega (2012) 67 for the notion that these women acted as guardians of the Roman state in emulation of the Vestal Virgins and Livia (on whom see below). 98256.indb 188 9/11/15 14:35 VESTA AND JULIO-CLAUDIAN WOMEN IN IMPERIAL PROpagaNDA 189 the case of Antonia, might point in this direction.4 In his biography of Antonia Minor, Kokkinos assumes that Caligula’s grandmother was given all the privileges of the Vestal Virgins, including being maintained at public cost, the right to release any prisoner or to put anyone to death.5 The modern assumption that Caligula’s relatives were ‘honorary Ves- tals’ goes hand in hand with the assumption that Livia was pushed for- ward by Augustus and Tiberius as a personal guardian of the cult of Vesta on the Palatine, according to some scholars in some sort of sacer- dotal capacity, in a deliberate attempt to present Livia as a ‘fertile coun- terpart of the Vestal Virgins’.6 An accumulation of modern references to an imperial propagandistic program in which an association was made between the cult of Vesta and its priestesses on the one hand, and Julio- Claudian women on the other, combined with what seems like a precon- ception in the minds of modern historians (‘this is what one would expect from the imperial house’) has led to conclusions in which the chronological succession of imperial actions with regard to the cult of Vesta has become obscure or even forgotten. The aim of this article is first to expose these assumptions as so-called ‘factoids’, hypotheses which have been repeated over and over again and ultimately taken for facts.7 Secondly, this article wants to examine to what extent the impe- rial court during the Julio-Claudian period deliberately tried to constitute an association between imperial women and the cult of Vesta or the Vestal Virgins. In addition, it will also pay attention to the presence of Vesta imagery in imperial coinage after the Julio-Claudian period. The importance of such an endeavour is self-evident. As many of these assumptions have taken root in modern scholarship and, more importantly, often constitute a premise for other research, it is necessary to separate fact from fiction.8 A misinformed perception of imperial 4 Wood (2010). 5 Kokkinos (2002) 96. 6 Severy (2003) 135. See also Flory (1984) 321; Kunst (1999) 231; Stepper (2000) 64; Roche (2002) 55; Caprioli (2007) 84. 7 Cf. Yoffee (2005) 7: “A factoid is a speculation or guess that has been repeated so often it is eventually taken for hard fact.” 8 E.g. Mikocki (1995) 30 assumes that Livia was “une sorte de ‘super-vestale’” in Rome and, therefore, interprets the reverse of a coin type minted by Caligula in AD 37-38 as Livia (RIC I2, Caligula, nos. 38, 47, 54), though the figure represented — a seated female with sceptre and patera — does not show resemblance to Livia and is identified as Vesta in the legend. Kajava (2001) 76 uses the “well-known fact that Livia was associ- ated with Vesta or Hestia” in Rome and the Empire as an argument for the Roman char- acter of the Hestia on Athens’ Acropolis. The evidence which he offers for an association 98256.indb 189 9/11/15 14:35 190 L. FOUBERT propagandistic policies has implications on many levels: it might obscure our notion of historical processes and the impact of precedents; it can overestimate (or underestimate for that matter) the importance of tradi- tional Roman cults in visual representations of imperial women; it may as well cloud our understanding of Augustan and Julio-Claudian propa- ganda. To name but a few. 1. THE ROAD TO MISUNDERSTANDING: THE CULT OF VESTA AND AUGUSTAN POLICY As stated, it sometimes happens that hypotheses become so-called ‘fac- toids’. This seems to be the case with the association of Caligula’s female relatives, but also of other Julio-Claudian women, with the cult of Vesta or the Vestal Virgins. By ‘association’, I understand in this article all forms of representation connecting persons with the gods (and the virtues they incarnate) or the divine. This ‘divine association’ could take different forms of which the most important that will be treated here are association through well-chosen (religious) actions, association with specific deities by way of depictions with divine attributes and associa- tion with the divine through deification. I will consider association with the cult of Vesta or with the Vestal Virgins, though they undeniably constitute different ‘degrees’ of association, as one and the same for the connotation which both evoke and which would have been sought after by the imperial court was that of chastity.