Empress of Rome: The Life of Livia

Matthew Dennison is a regular contributor to The Times and Country Life. He is also the author of a book about Victorian history: The Last Princess: the Devoted Life of Queen Victoria’s Youngest Daughter (hardcover 2007, paperback 2008). This biography of Livia, Empress of Rome, is his first venture into the world of ancient Rome. Unfortunately, it is not very successful. It seems he is not really familiar with this world. If you ask me, he should stick to writing feature articles in Country Life and to Victorian history. I have many arguments when I make this claim. For reasons of space I can only mention some of them here:

(1) The illustration on the front cover is a detail of a large painting from 1819, which is included in the book as illustration # 20. But the detail is reversed: on the cover Livia is facing left; in the original she is facing right!

(2) The text on the back cover presents Livia as the “Second wife of the emperor Augustus.” But she was in fact the third wife of Augustus. The first was Claudia; the second Scribonia. Claudia and Scribonia are both mentioned in the book (on page 85), but the author pretends Augustus was merely engaged (and not married) to Claudia, and therefore she does not count. Svetonius says Augustus was married three times, and there is no reason to question his statement.

 

[Svetonius, Divus Augustus, 62.]

(3) Dennison says Livia was born on 30 January 58 BC. He gives the year and/or the date no less than seven times (pp. 6, 8, 11, 13, 19, 22 & 208). In one instance (page 8) he even claims “the date 30 January can be stated with reasonable certainty.” But he is wrong.

 

In 58 BC, when Livia was born, the old republican calendar was still in use, and January had only 29 days. In the Roman Empire nobody was born on 30 January 58 BC, because this date did not exist. Livia was born on 28 January, and during the first years of her life she celebrated her birthday on that date.

 

In January 45 BC Caesar introduced a new calendar – known as the Julian calendar – and January was given two more days. From 45 BC, Livia celebrated her birthday on 30 January. For Livia almost nothing changed: all her life she celebrated her birthday three days (by Roman counting) before the first day of February.

 

For more details see Denis Feeney, Caesar's Calendar (2007, 2009), page 156.

(4) In chapter 3 we are told that Cicero “had departed the city for voluntary exile.” Why did Cicero go into exile in 58 BC? Dennison never answers this question. Here is the answer: as consul in 63 BC Cicero had led the attack on Catilina and his allies. Roman citizens were killed without a trial, and this was against the law. Catilina and his conspiracy are mentioned two times (pp. 10 and 60), but there is no connection to Cicero. I realise that this is not a book about Cicero and Catilina, but when Dennison introduces Cicero’s exile, I think he should explain why it happened.

(5) In chapter 25 Dennison mentions the episode in which the poet Virgil reads from his work The Aeneid to Augustus, Livia and Octavia. When the poet mentions Marcellus – the son of Octavia, who died very young – Octavia faints. This moment is the subject of a painting from 1820 (illustration # 21). Dennison claims it shows “Livia catching her milk-white sister-in-law as she falls.” If you compare the painting with the statement, you will see that the statement is false. We do not see Octavia falling. We do not see Livia catching her.

(6) Dennison often quotes from an ancient author. But when you go to the notes at the end of the book, you will discover that the quote is taken from a modern (secondary) book and not the ancient (primary) source.

(7) The author gives conflicting information about the marriage between Tiberius and Vipsania: on page 145 it is placed in 20 BC; but on page 172 we are told it took place in 19 BC. The fact is we do not know exactly when this marriage took place.

(8) On page 33 he quotes a letter from Cicero. When you go to the notes at the end of the book, you will find that he is quoting from a collection of letters published in 1839! He does not provide a proper reference. I looked it up, and it seems the reference should be Ad Atticum, 12.41.3

(9) Cicero's friend Atticus is mentioned four times. On page 33 he is described as "a Roman knight called Atticus." On page 37 as "Cicero's associate Atticus." He was a Roman knight and an associate of Cicero, but when I see these descriptions I get the distinct impression that Dennison does not know much about Atticus (or Cicero for that matter).

(10) There are many problems with this book. Some are in the details, as explained above. A more general problem is the structure. The 31 chapters of the book follow a chronological line, but within each chapter the storyline often jumps back and forth. This is annoying and confusing.

(11) Perhaps the biggest problem is the way in which Dennison uses the ancient sources. He has a special phrase for them: “If we can believe NN” or “If we can trust NN.” This phrase appears again and again (pp. 69, 72, 79, 87, 92, 104, 127, 137, 144, 161, and 193).

The word “if” means we are asking a question: can we trust this particular source or not? Dennison asks the question, but he fails to answer it; and he fails to explain why we should believe or reject a particular source.

When Dennison uses his special phrase, it looks as if he is carefully evaluating the credibility of a particular source, but this is not the case. In fact, the special phrase is used to avoid evaluating the credibility of the source.

(12) Throughout the book, Dennison makes suggestions. He says: “We can only speculate…” (pp. 17, 128, 194), and it is a “matter for conjecture” (pp. 159, 172, 211), but he does not give us any firm conclusions. When he finally gives his answer about Livia - on page 268, the very last page - it feels like an anti-climax, because the answer is so short, just one sentence, in fact just one word, which he says twice: is Livia responsible for horrible crimes?

“… the answer, insofar as trustworthy evidence survives, is no and again no.”

With one sweeping statement all ancient sources regarding Livia are rejected.

Dennison put a lot of effort into this book, it is easy to see. But in the world of books, the only thing that counts is the result, and in this case the result is simply not good enough.

PS. Inside the paperback version there are excerpts from several reviews of the hardcover version. All are very positive. It seems these reviewers decided not to mention the serious flaws of the book or perhaps they did not even notice them, because they too are not really familiar with the world of ancient Rome. One of the reviews quoted is written by Tom Holland who says:

"A learned, engrossing and pacey new biography... Dennison combines a healthy scepticism towards his sources with an alertness to all that made the career of his heroine authentically remarkable."

Tom Holland is a classical scholar and the author of several highly rated books about the ancient world. He should know better. I am very disappointed to see that he decided to praise this work. The biography is described as "learned," even though there are numerous mistakes in it. We are told the author shows "a healthy scepticism towards his sources," even though he consistently avoids discussing the credibility of his sources.

 

* * *

 

Matthew Dannison,
Empress of Rome: The Life of Livia,

Quercus, paperback 2010, hardcover 2011, 320 pages 

 

* * *