Antonia Caenis and the Flavian Dynasty

<p>households: first as the <i>a manu</i> and freedwoman of Antonia, the mother of the emperor Claudius, and then as the concubine of Vespasian (Suet. <i>Vesp</i>. 3). Accounts of her relationship with Vespasian have provided modern scholars with valuable evidence for the institution of concubinage in the Roman world (Rawson 1974, Treggiari 1982, McGinn 1991, Friedl 1996); their discussions of concubinage as a legitimate, and sometimes preferable, alternative to marriage have furthered our understanding of how sexual relationships were defined and regulated in antiquity and have situated Caenis’ relationship with Vespasian in its broader social context. However, in adopting this approach these studies have de-emphasized this relationship’s unique political and historical context. Recent work on the imperial household has explored the ways in which dichotomies of public and private did not apply to the imperial family (Winterling 2009) and the extent to which the relationships within this family were on display for the Roman public (Severy 2000, Milnor 2005). At the same time, studies of concubinage in other historical contexts have explored its role in establishing and defining gender, racial, or political hierarchies (e.g. Stoler 2002, Ghosh 2006). In this paper I will discuss Caenis’ and Vespasian’s relationship’s symbolic meaning in its public and political context and explore her role in the development of the public image of Vespasian and his family. Caenis’ presence as Vespasian’s sexual and social partner – in addition to whatever emotional and personal significance they themselves attached to it – had dynastic implications that formed the basis of the public image of the Flavian house. Respectable older Roman men acquired concubines only after the conclusion of a legal marriage, so Caenis’ presence served as a reminder of Vespasian’s deceased wife, implicitly including her in the imperial family (cf. Wood 2010) and asserting Titus’ and Domitian’s legitimacy; furthermore, because Caenis could not produce legitimate children, her presence reinforced his adult sons’ status as his future heirs, contributing to a clear and uncomplicated vision of the future stability of the Flavian dynasty. Finally, although Caenis was at the center of the imperial court as Vespasian’s partner, she had no biological connection to his heirs, and thus would play no role in the transfer of imperial power upon his death (cf. Mirón 2000); this contributed to the perception of the Flavian dynasty as almost exclusively male, lacking women like Agrippina or Messalina whose roles in transferring imperial authority had formed the basis of their dangerous personal power. Caenis’ relationship with Vespasian was respectable and in keeping with Roman tradition, but in its political context its very respectability made it uniquely meaningful for the public image of the new emperor, his family, and the imperial house that he had established. My paper will consider the political significance of Caenis’ presence at the center of the imperial household, which will shed further light on the imperial family’s role in the ongoing development of the ideology of Roman monarchy in the first century CE.