Talk:Livia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 23 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isitjimmy, Centeotl777.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Date of Drusus the Elder's birth

Date of birth - cf. Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius [Oxford 1955] p.45 (date of Antony's birth), in combination with Suetonius, Life of Claudius c. 11 (Antony's birthday was the same).

Marriage to Octavian - chronology of events

Here are most of the key texts concerning the marriage to Octavian (17 January 38 BC),

Velleius Paterculus 2.79:

Hac classi Caesar, cum prius despondente ei Nerone, cui ante nupta fuerat Liviam, auspicatis rei publicae ominibus duxisset eam uxorem, Pompeio Siciliaeque bellum intulit.

Velleius [94] Hoc tractu temporum Ti. Claudius Nero, quo trimo, ut praediximus, Livia, Drusi Claudiani filia, despondente Ti. Nerone, cui ante nupta fuerat, Caesari nupserat,

Velleius [95] Reversum inde Neronem Caesar haud mediocris belli mole experiri statuit, adiutore operis dato fratre ipsius Druso Claudio, quem intra Caesaris penates enixa erat Livia.

Tacitus, Annals 5.1

After this Cæsar, enamoured of her beauty, took her away from her husband, whether against her wish is uncertain. So impatient was he that he brought her to his house actually pregnant, not allowing time for her confinement.

Suet. Aug. 62:

He divorced her [Scribonia] also, "unable to put up with her shrewish disposition," as he himself writes, and at once (ac statim) took Livia Drusilla from her husband Tiberius Nero, although she was with child at the time; and he loved and esteemed her to the end without a rival.

Dio 48.34.3:

...he was already beginning to be enamoured of Livia..., and for this reason divorced Scribonia the very day she bore him a daughter.

Since the dates of Drusus’ birthday (January 14) and the wedding to Octavian are established, the events can be reconstructed as follows:

1. Simultaneous birth of Julia, and Octavian’s divorce of Scribonia (October 39)

2. Now Tiberius Claudius Nero surrenders Livia (six months pregnant) to Octavian, and there is a betrothal where Nero is actively involved („prius despondente ei Nerone” - Velleius 2.79). Livia now lives with Octavian (Velleius 95, "[Drusum] quem intra Caesaris penates enixa erat Livia")

3. Birth of Drusus (Jan.14). Octavian surrenders the child to Tiberius Claudius Nero.

4. Marriage of Livia and Octavian (Jan 17)

Seen in the context of the above, the passage in Suetonius (V.Claudii 1) is nonsense:

The father of Claudius Caesar, Drusus, who at first had the forename Decimus and later that of Nero, was born of Livia within three months after her marriage to Augustus (for she was with child at the time) and there was a suspicion that he was begotten by his stepfather in adulterous intercourse.

It seems that the „marriage” has been confused with the betrothal, and that the two events were separated by three months.

Dio (48.44.), while giving valuable details, also confuses the betrothal to Octavian, and the marriage (passage underlined):

Besides these occurrences at that time, Caesar married Livia. 44 She was the daughter of Livius Drusus, who had been among those proscribed on the tablet and had committed suicide after the defeat in Macedonia, and the wife of Nero, whom she had accompanied in his flight, as has been related. And it seems that she was in the sixth month with child by him. 2 At any rate, when Caesar was in doubt and enquired of the pontifices whether it was permissible to wed her while pregnant, they answered that it there was any doubt whether conception had taken place the marriage should be put off, but if this was admitted, there was nothing to prevent its taking place immediately. Perhaps they really found this among the ordinances of the forefathers, but certainly they would have said so, even had they not found it. 3 Her husband himself gave the woman in marriage just as a father would; and the following incident occurred at the marriage feast. One of the prattling boys, such as the women keep about them for their amusement, naked as a rule, on seeing Livia reclining in one place with Caesar, and Nero p315in another with a man, went up to her and said: "What are you doing here, mistress? For your husband," pointing him out, "is reclining over there." 4 So much then, for this. Later, when the woman was now living with Caesar, she gave birth to Claudius Drusus Nero. Caesar both acknowledged him and sent him to his real father, making his entry in his memoranda: "Caesar returned to its father Nero the child borne by Livia, his wife." 5 Nero died not long afterward and left Caesar himself as guardian to the boy and to Tiberius.

28 04 2006

81.190.70.164

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Livia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420143233/http://www.hermitagerooms.com/exhibitions/Byzantium/livia.asp to http://www.hermitagerooms.com/exhibitions/Byzantium/livia.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"Personality"

The "Personality" section sounds like someone uploaded a section of their high school essay. Should be rewritten entirely. 64.231.233.233 (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Historical picture, etc.

"Historical picture in the direction of the vineyards by the sea between Prosecco and Barcola where the Empress' favorite wine was grown"

Someone liked this picture, but it's pointless and unencyclopedic. Why a WW1-era picture that doesn't even show whatever it is that has at most a tangential relation to a 2,000 year old subject? 2A02:AA1:162A:8A57:E8CC:2CA8:8253:23F6 (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Augusta

Added her title of Augusta to the quick information tab ~2026-23948-25 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Third pregnancy

@Sobek2000 As far as I'm aware the language used by Suetonius is very ambigious and it's not really clear if it was a miscarriage, stillbirth, or early death in early infancy. Does the author in the book you cited argue that it should be interpeted as third option? And if so what are these arguments? I've seen many many English language authors describe it as a miscarriage or stillbirth based on the ancient source. ★Trekker (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Suetonius says: Ex Scribonia Iuliam, ex Livia nihil liberorum tulit, cum maxime cuperet. Infans, qui conceptus erat, immaturus est editus. - "By Scribonia he had Julia, by Livia no [surviving] children, although he greatly wanted them. A baby was conceived, but was prematurely born [and did not live, since couple remained childess]". True, Suetonius does not tell us if child was born or alive or not, but that is the point: if modern source reffers event as 'miscarriage' or 'stillbirth' based on Suetonius, this is is not correct translation but assumption/oversimplification. Suetonius does not tells us it was miscarriage [abortus, abortum], he also does not tell us child was stillborn - he says only that child birth was premature and from context (Octavian and Livia being childless) it's clear child did not live long.
Freisenbruch referrs to the event by basically translating how Suetonius described is - death that was result of premature birth: "A child who was born prematurely did not survive". To me it really doesn't matter wheter child was born alive or not - Suetonius clearly acknowledges the existence of child by reffering to him/her as "infans" [baby]. If someone referrs to the matter as 'miscarriage' or 'stillbirth' as fact, that is pure presumption - plausible, but based on oversimplification from researcher's side (I sometimes see historians simplifying situation and referring as 'stillbirths' the children who, albeit short-lived, were definitely born alive and even named), not on what Suetonius actually wrote. From Suetonius we know only that Livia had premature child who did not live past infancy; wondering wheter if it was miscarriage or stillbirth is pure speculation. It's like wondering if Drusus was son of Octavian - maybe he was, but legally he was akcnowledged by Livia's first husband, he will be forever remembered as child of her first husband, and all ancient and modern speculations regarding parentage remains that - speculations. Sobek2000 (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Sobek2000 While this is all very interesting, it feels like to me that your interpetation is bordering on ORIG, the fact is that many academic authors do assume Suetonius is refering to a miscarriage or stillbirth. Unless Freisenbruch is explicitly arguing against these interpetations on the basis of what Suetonius wrote, and has gained support for these arguments, I don't think we can dismiss other authors interpetation. Preferably the article should present each position and explain why the authors have made these interpretations.★Trekker (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

But there is nothing really to discuss. No authors explain why they made assumption they did, but all of then based their statements on one sentence by Suetonius that I already quoted - nothing there about child being born dead: all we know that birth was premature and child died. So if someone writes "miscarriage" or "stillbirth" while quoting Suetonius, they obviously misquote him. Sometimes authors do mistake, even on otherwise reliable works. For example in their (very good) books on Cleopatra, Stacy Schiff and Joyce Tyldesley referr to Octavia Minor as Octavian' "half-sister" when she was his full sister. Should we argue then that we should include on Wikipedia their interpretation of familial relationship? No, because they obviously did mistake. It is not about disimissing interpretation - it's about accurate paraphrasing quote in question - Freisenbruch does it correctly. Sobek2000 (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, saying child died in infancy encompases stillbirth, as this is infant loss too; stillborn infant is also a infant. Sobek2000 (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

How do you know they "obviously" made mistakes and that no author has an explanation for their word choice?★Trekker (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

If you find author who explains in detail why they interpretation is stillbirth, you are welcome to add this. I doubt you find it, however, since Suetonius would simply said "child was born dead" - his emphasis is on birth being premature, not on child status. Context points child died, but there is no explicit statement it was stillbirth, so any author claiming so, does oversimplification. Freisenbruch paraphrased Suetonius and she does not question validity od his account, so we should read it how it was written: preterm and short-lived child.

I would also add another example of historian doing obviousl mistake. Queen Barbara Radziwiłł was reported to have miscarriage in letter by Stanisław Dowojno. This letter says absolutely nothing on sex of a child. However, one author (Paweł Jasienica), claims im his book "she lost a daughter". How he came to this conclusion, he doesn't explain, but this is clearly against primary source. Without explenation from him, we just assume this was mistake. (Other hostorians discuss presumed miscarriage, and some even wonder wheter Queen was pregnant, but one every discuss sex because there is nothing to discuss, as source is silent on the matter.) Should we quote his information as reliable, when it was clearly mistake on his part? It is not example of author discusing and analysing primary source; it is author metioninng something in passing without any further comment. If some author casually mentions Livia's third child being "stillborn" or "miscarried" without explenation, that is oversimplification of primary source as Suetonius does not use word for miscarriage, nor he says child was born dead.Sobek2000 (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I re-phrased wording, so it can encompases both stillbirth and neonatal death. I still believe wording suggests live-born short-lived infant, but my problem was not per-say with idea that child could be stillborn, but with presenting stillbirth (or miscarriage) as fact, when Suetonius never explicitly tells that baby was born already dead. Sobek2000 (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)