SRN: 1571217

Write a commentary on one of the extracts below, highlighting points of interest in style and
content and discussing the context from which it is taken.

2)
The so-called Laudatio Turiae is a personal, marble Roman funerary inscription from the husband,
Lucretius that extols the virtues of a perfect wife, Turia, who died after forty years of marriage. It
sheds a rare light on the challenges that Roman women faced in their lives, civil war or not, including
the pressures to have children, the difficulties of childbirth, and womens role in helping their family
in bereavement, which was heightened in the moral (and then legal) climate of Augustan Rome.

To begin with, it is important to note that the genre of the, so-called, Laudatio Turiae, is laudation
funebris. Arguably, the genre is shaped by [rhetorical] convention, which may not be a reliable
indicator of the characters of real women living real lives. 1 It has been further suggested that the
genre of laudation funebris was meant to solicit the most favorable reaction from his audience. 2
This suggests that amplification and embellishment were almost customary, not only in its
content, but also in the delivery of the oration itself, if the inscription was delivered at all. 3 This clearly
shows that literary formulae inherent in laudation funebris, like the formulaic nature of the list of
female virtues, distort both ancient and contemporary perceptions of the wife.

During Augustan Rome, it becomes increasingly clear that female sphere within society was
orientated around the home and family. This suggests that a prominent function of women, during
the time of Augustus, were to breed citizen-soldiers in legitimate Roman marriage, because
children were the reason for the institution of marriage and the act of getting married was for the
sake of procreating children.4 Unsurprisingly, the passage highlights this pressure to have children.
First, the passage alludes to an ambiguous length of time for a long time, evoking a sense of
frustration. While plurals, like we and us, are used instead of I, vividly presenting this frustration
to have been shared by both the wife and the husband. This clearly emphasises, not only their marital
struggle, but also the pervasive notion that the procreation of children was an important social norm
in Augustan Rome. Moreover, the use of the past tense, we did, suggests a loss of hope and a sense
of disappointment. This illustrates that the passage underlines the idea that the inability to bear
children was something to disapprove of, and procreating children within a marriage was an
achievement within Augustan Rome, particularly since Augustus lex Papia-Poppaea (9 AD) presents
rewards, punishments, and quota[s] concerning procreation, not just concerning elite Roman
women.5

Although the notion of separate spheres was maintained and the conventional domestic virtues was
the standard for female behaviour during the Augustan period, the passage makes it apparent that
Roman women, within Augustan Rome, were able to transcend their assigned gender role. This is
highlighted by the wifes possession of quintessential male qualities of virtus and fortitude.6 This is
vividly illustrated by the inclusion of military imagery and words derived from military action to
describe the wifes actions, like defend, suffer cruel wounds, saved my life and provided,
within the passage. This shows Turia to step into the male public sphere of military, political, and
juridical activities, thus taking over the male role.7 This is reinforced by the distinct contrast of the

1
Laurence 2014.
2
Laurence 2014.
3
Crawford 1941: 24.
4
Treggiari 2005: 131 & 133.
5
Frank 1975: 45.
6
Hemelriik 2004: 188.
7
Hemelriik 2004: 188.

1
 SRN: 1571217

husband to assume the female role, which is not only shown within the passage, but also throughout
the entire (surviving) inscription. The repetition of the word saved (three times) in the passage
evidently depicts the husband as weak, in need of saving, therefore lacking fortitude. Clearly, the
passage demonstrates, not only the inversion of gender roles: the husband as the damsel in distress
and the wife as the knight in shining armour, but also presents the husband to emphasise this
notion.

It is also important to note that the depiction of Turia to possess these male virtues was a risky
notion because it could damage her reputation, a notion that her husband was fully aware of.8
Therefore, to prevent the damage to the wifes reputation, like that of Fulvia, the husband also
presents Turia to possess commonly praised female qualities, particularly obedience and devotion to
her husband, and her devotion to domestic tasks. This shows that this passage demonstrates the
Augustan ideal for female behaviour. Firstly, although the passage shows the use of military words
like defend, where words associated with the military used for women can be seen as improper, it
is clear that defend was used in the context of the home: defend our home. This suggests that it
was an extension of her duties as a wife, especially since wherever a true wife comes Home is
always around her.9 This clearly shows that this passage emphasises the Roman ideals for women in
Augustan Rome: to stay within the domestic sphere. Moreover, the passage also immediately begins
with the idea that her actions, in the absence of her husband, were done for his needs. Again, the
repetition of saved (three times) in this passage reinforces this notion. It clearly emphasises that
her only motive was in the interest of her husband, and not for personal gain. Additionally, the
passages inclusion of explicit violent imagery to describe the actions against Turia (she was
brutally dragged), and the consequences of protecting her husband (suffer[ed] cruel wounds,
and her body full of bruises), most certainly shows her self-sacrificing devotion to her husband.
Ultimately, the passage, not only juxtaposes the male and female qualities that Turia possesses,
presenting her as a paradox to both ancient and contemporary readers, but also demonstrates the
idea that a Roman woman could acquire male virtues that could be seen as praiseworthy and
remarkable by the Roman audience.

Interestingly, this interpretation that Turias actions were in service of her husband also raises the
questions concerning the importance of intentions, which seemed to have been a determining factor
in whether a Roman womans reputation was praised or denounced, not only within the climate of
Augustan Rome, but also within ancient Roman society as a whole. 10

To conclude, the passage highlights the various ways in which Turia is depicted to possess both
traditional female and male qualities, which ultimately alludes to the kind of social climate Turia
and Lucretius lived in: the societal place of women and men, and the pressures of childbearing
(particularly on women). Furthermore, the passage also shows how the genre of laudation funebris
helps to construct a praiseworthy reputation for Roman women.

WORD COUNT: 1,098.

8
Hemelriik 2004: 191.
9
Hemelriik 2004: 197.
10
Hemelriik 2004: 196.

2
 SRN: 1571217

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Laurence, T. 2014. The Laudatio Turiae: A Source for Roman Poltiical and Social History, Berkeley
Undergraduate Journal of Classics 3(1), http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2123r4bs (accessed 10 Mar
2017).

Hemelrijk, E.A. 2004. Masculinity and Feminainity in the Laudatio Turiae, The Classical Quarterly 2
(54), 185-197.

Osgood, J. 2014. Turia: A Roman Womans Civil War. Oxford, New York, Auckland, Cape Town, Dar es
Salaam, Hong Kong, Karachi, Kuala Lumpur, Madrid, Melbourne, Mexico City, Nairobi, New Delhi,
Shanghai, Taipei, and Toronto.

Crawford, O.C. 1941. Laudatio Funebris, The Classical Journal 37 (1), 17-27.

Treggiari, S. 2005. Women in the Time of Augustus, in K. Glainsky,(ed.). Age of Augsutus. Cambridge.
130-147.

Frank, R.I. 1975. Augustus Legislation on Marriage and Children, California Studies in Classical
Antiquity 8, 41-52.

3
 SRN: 1571217

5) What role did Roman Women play in political life? Discuss using specific examples from the
sources you have studied.

In answering this question, it is important to establish who constitutes as Roman Women, what we
consider as role, and what we mean as political life. By considering Roman Women as the
women of the political elite, role as their function(s) in politics and in the political lives of their
associated males, and political life as male affairs, this essay will demonstrate, not only the various
unofficial roles of women in male affairs, assertive or passive, like kingmaker, regent, unofficial
ruler, consort or confidante, unofficial politician, and political tools of the prominent male, but also
the notion that it almost became formulaic among ancient historical writers that women of high
birth played a key role in late Republic politics.11 This essay will also demonstrate that, although
Roman Women were rigorously excluded from all official participation in public [male] affairs; it
was through men that women could exert influence in male public sectors.12

To begin with, there are a variety of problems with our primary and secondary sources on Roman
women. Firstly, our ancient texts are overwhelming written by, for and about men.13 The fact that
the role of the [male] author is crucial to meaning, since it can distort our perception of facts,
evidently shows that primary sources cannot be taken at face value. This is further enhanced by the
idea that modern scholars label accounts, like Dios of Agrippina, as hostile.14 It is also clear that
Roman women had no place in the consular list (fasti) or the official senatorial records (acta senatus),
which were important sources for the historians in Roman times. 15 This suggests that the inclusion of
women in ancient texts is also (relatively) limited. Secondly, it also becomes increasingly clear that
only a tiny portion of contemporary, or near contemporary, historical writings have survived. 16 This
suggests that we are dealing with surviving material, which may not give us a true picture of the lives
of Roman women, as it is not necessarily representative. Thirdly, it is also suggested by many
scholars, like Dixon, our response to the ancient material is also skewed by our own preconceptions
about Roman women and womens role in general, particularly since we historians at least were all
empiricists, believing in the existence of an historic reality.17 This suggests that any readings of
ancient material on Roman women are subconsciously tainted by our modern assumptions, where we
may make suggestions that are not only untrue, but, perhaps, also were not intended by the ancient
writer.

A good example of an ancient male author who imposed his own judgements into the construction of
a woman, which distorts our perception, is Livy. Although, he presents an evident role played by
Roman Women: kingmaker, exemplified by Tanaquil and Tullia Minor, he, not only presents both in
a negative light, but he actually presents one more evil than the other.18 Firstly, Livys presentation
of Tanaquil seems to only warn his audience of the interference of women in Roman public life and
politics, as the brutal deaths of her male pawns, Tarquinius Priscus and Servius Tullius, surely
attests.19 This shows Tanaquil to serve as a highly effective anti-exemplum for Romans, not only due
to her gender but also her foreignness. This is contrasted with Livys presentation of Tullia. He
explicitly suggests Tullia as an evil woman, stating that Tarquin was just as bad as Tullia, but evil

11
Barrett 1996: 9.
12
Bauman 2002: 2.
13
Dixon 2001: 7.
14
Dixon 2001: 20.
15
Dixon 2001: 20.
16
Barrett 2002: 232.
17
Dixon 2001: 18.
18
Bell & Carpino 2016: 308.
19
Bell & Carpino 2016: 309.

4
 SRN: 1571217

was drawn to evil but the woman took the lead.20 This clearly shows Livys contempt towards Tullia,
whereas Tanaquils actions are just disapproved of. This difference in presentation of the same role
(kingmaker) shows Livys tendency to entrench his opinions into his narrative, which, ultimately,
skews our perception of the Roman woman, and her intentions.

Nevertheless, if we take Livys account of Tanaquil at face value, we can clearly see Tanaquil to play
the role of kingmaker in the political life of Servius Tullius. While Tarquinius was dying, it is
suggested that Tanaquil bought some time21 by giving, orders to close the palace and eject[ed]
all witnesses.22 This allowed her to confer and implement the next steps for Servius to carry out
kingly duties. She, not only took other measures to protect herself in case her hope should fail her,
but more importantly, persuaded Servius to take what belonged to him. 23 She is presented to have
cleverly manipulated Servius by showing him her husbands nearly lifeless body, while also giving
him a heart-felt speech that insinuated that he will have the guidance of the gods if he took action
to reign.24 This clearly supports Bell and Carpinos idea that Tanaquil seems to be a prototype for the
manipulative, ambitious female.25 Livy further presents Tanaquil to command that the people
should obey Servius Tullius, who (according to her) would dispense justice and perform the other
duties of the king.26 Ultimately, Tanaquils efforts proved successful, when Servius is described to
have ruled at first without the authorisation of the people, but with the consent of the Fathers. 27
The fact that Tanaquil essentially controlled the midst of tumult in favour of her male pawn,
Servius, most definitely shows her to play the role of kingmaker.28 This demonstrates that Roman
women played the role of kingmaker in Roman political life.

Livys Tanaquil could also be suggested to have played the role of regent, because she is presented to
have assumed the role of a ruler, while Tarquinius was moribund. This is shown by language Livy uses
to describe her actions. For example, Livy uses gave orders and commanded, words that are very
much associated to the military and leadership.29 The fact that she is described to have given
orders, addressed the populace, and commanded the people to obey her chosen proxy while
the two male figures (Tarquinius and Servius) are shown to assume a much more passive role,
evidently shows her as a leading-figure, despite the fact that she appears as a kind of co-ruler to the
dying Tarquinius to the ancient populace.30 Ultimately, Livy presents her actions to lead, not only
the narrative, but also Servius and the populace. This, not only shows that Roman women played the
role of regent, but also the idea that Roman Women played various roles simultaneously, in Roman
political life.

Arguably, another role Roman women played in political life were that of co-ruler.31 Ginsburg
characterises Agrippina the Elder to participate in the rhetorical stereotype of dux femina
(commander woman), which can be interpreted, to show that Agrippina the Elder played the role of

20
Livy History of Rome 1.46.7.
21
MacLachlan 2013: 19.
22
Livy History of Rome 1.41.1.
23
Livy History of Rome 1.41.1-3.
24
Livy History of Rome 1.41.2-3.
25
Bell & Carpino 2016: 308.
26
Livy History of Rome 1.41.5.
27
Livy History of Rome 1.41.6.
28
Livy History of Rome 1.41.1.
29
Livy History of Rome 1.41.1.
30
Livy History of Rome 1.41.
31
Bauman 2002: 133.

5
 SRN: 1571217

co-ruler, specifically a military co-ruler.32 This is suggested in Tacitus, who clearly shows her
inappropriate involvement in military matters (a male affair), which can be considered as part of
Roman political life. 33 For example, during the German campaigns of 15 BC, Tacitus termed
Agrippina as a great hearted women, who assumed the duties of a general.34 This shows the idea
that Agrippina the Elder had acted as a military general in the presence of her husband, Germanicus.
This demonstrates her to have played the role of co-ruler. However, it could also be suggested that
Agrippina (the Elder) actually played the role of unofficial leader. This is shown when Tacitus goes on
to say: nothing was left for the generals (imperatoribus) when a woman (femina) inspected the
maniples, approached the standards and planned to distribute largess.35 This shows her to
(completely) replace the male generals, including Germanicus. Tacitus further suggests, They
[women like Agrippina the Elder] rule our houses, our tribunals, even our armies. 36 This explicitly
suggests that Agrippina took charge as a leading figure. This suggests that she played the role of
unofficial military leader, and not co-ruler, showing that Roman women played the role of
unofficial ruler in Roman political life, despite the idea that such emphasis may be due to rhetoric.

Despite this, it can be argued that Roman women played the role of co-ruler.37 Livys Livia shows
this. After the death of Augustus, there were considerations of changing Livias status to Augusta
(mater patriae), as Augustus will adopted her into the Julian family.38 Despite the notion that the
term Augusta was ambiguous, it is argued that Augusta meant something more than a mere
dowager; it was designated an empress.39 The fact that this status of Augusta (mater patriae)
mirrors that of Augustus title of pater pateriae, it draws the idea that their statuses were alike,
suggesting that Augustus saw her as a co-ruler.40 Although Tiberious ultimately vetoed the proposal
to make Livia mater patriae, it definitely shows that Livia, as the mother in a reigning family, must
have proved capable of leadership, especially since the title would have made her the face of
power, as Allen suggests.41 This suggests that Roman women played the role of co-ruler in Roman
political life, since they threatened the prominent male.

However, the term of Augusta may have been designated to her due to Augustus fondness of his
wife, particularly since it becomes increasingly apparent that Livia actually played the role of consort
and confidante in Augustus political life, rather than co-ruler.42 This is because it seems as though
Livias advice was asked for rather than assertively given like a ruler would do. For example, Seneca
suggests that Augustus made a practice of discussing important matters with her [Livia], compiling a
list of topics to be dealt with at the next meeting, noting her [Livias] replies for future references. 43
This shows Livia as an accommodating wife. 44 The fact that important is emphasised, not only
shows that Livia played an influential role in her husbands political life, but more importantly that she
was not included in all his political matters.45 This shows that she does not fit into the role of co-

32
Ginsburg 2006: 218.
33
Tacitus The Annals 1.69.1.
34
Tacitus The Annals 1.69.1.
35
Tacitus The Annals 1.69.4.
36
Tacitus The Annals 3.33.
37
Bauman 2002: 133.
38
Bauman 2002: 131.
39
Bauman 2002: 131.
40
Bauman 2002: 133
41
Allen 2015: 6.
42
Bauman 2002: 124.
43
Bauman 2002: 126.
44
Tacitus The Annals 5.1.1.
45
Bauman 2002: 126.

6
 SRN: 1571217

ruler, since co-ruler implies that one should be entrenched in all political matters, like Augustus
was. Regardless, the emphasis on important shows the idea that she was there when Augustus
most needed her, helping him.46 This evidently shows Livia to play the role of consort or confidante
in Augustus political life, particularly since her advice is termed as suggestions rather than
assertions.47

It could also be suggested that Roman women played the role of unofficial politician in Roman
political life. This is because they were able to exert influence, within the political sphere, in order to
advance their own political positions in society. For example, despite the fact that the literary
tradition is consistent in its depiction of Agrippina the Younger as a transgressor of sexual morality,
Agrippina the Younger, is suggested to have been a politician in her own right, since she used her
sexuality for explicitly political ends.48 Firstly, Tacitus account immediately shows Agrippina to seduce
her uncle Claudius into an incestuous marriage in order to, not only consolidate her son, Neros claim
to power, but also enhance her own political position.49 Tacitus states, For as soon as she was sure of
her marriage, she began to aim at greater things.50 This explicitly shows that her marriage to
Claudius was not based on love, but on power, making it clear that her priorities lie with her political
ambitions. Later, Tacitus even presents her to offer herself to her own son, in order to retain her
position.51 This clearly shows that Agrippina the Younger used her sexuality as a political tool.
Furthermore, the fact that Tacitus explicitly says that everything was under the control of a woman
[Agrippina the Younger] and a revolution in the Senate came, after she had swayed Alledius
Severus (member of the Senate) to desire the decree Claudius proposed to legalise the marriage
between uncles and brothers daughters, evidently shows that the influence of Agrippina on the
senate would have been considerable. 52 Clearly, Tacitus shows Agrippina as, not only a formidable
adversary, as Griffin suggests, but also to have played the role of unofficial politician, since she
exploited her sexual charms to advance her own political ambitions.53

Hortensias single recorded public appearance in 42 BC before the tribunal of the Second Triumvirate
could be suggested to also show her to play the role of unofficial politician, especially since she was
selected as their spokesman, as Appian reports.54 The fact that Appian explicitly states, women
had the nerve to hold a public meeting while the men were silent, clearly demonstrates the idea that
Hortensia had acted as though she was a male orator, like her father. 55 Valerius Maximus even says
that she had plead the case before the triumvirs, both firmly and successfully. 56 This shows that
Hortensia was effective and eloquent in playing the role of unofficial politician, pleading a case
against tax to the Second Triumvirate. This shows that Roman women played the role of unofficial
politician.

Although this essay till this point appears to predominantly show that Roman women played an
assertive role in Roman political life, there is also evidence of Roman women playing passive roles in
the political lives of their associated males, in terms of being used as political tools. For example, it is

46
Bauman 2002: 126.
47
Cassius Dio Roman History 55.22.1.
48
Bauman 2002: 156.
49
Tacitus The Annals 12.3.
50
Tacitus The Annals 12.3.
51
Ginsburg 2006: 116.
52
Barrett 1996: 108.
53
Barrett 1996: 7-8.
54
Appian The Civil Wars 4.32-4.
55
Appian The Civil Wars 4.32-4.
56
Valerius Maximus Memorable Deeds and Sayings 8.3.

7
 SRN: 1571217

suggested that Julia played the role of matrimonial pawn, in order to accommodate Augustus
political ends.57 This is shown by the fact that Augustus traded her off to a series of men58 without
any regard to her feelings.59 Firstly, Augustus married Julia to M. Claudius Marcellus (Octavias son by
her first marriage and Julias cousin). The match gave expression to Augustus cardinal belief that the
successor should be a member by blood of the Julian gens to which both Augustus and Octavia
belonged. This shows that Augustus used her for succession purposes. This is further emphasised by
her next marriage. When Marcellus died in 23 BC (2 years after the marriage), it is described, Octavia
prevailed on Agrippa to divorce Marcella and marry Julia in 21 BC.60 This marriage, again, functions
primarily for Augustus dynastic plans, particularly since Maecenas, who in counselling Augustus
remarked, you have made him [Agrippa] so great that he must become your son-inlaw or be
slain.61 This clearly shows Roman women played the role of matrimonial pawn in the Roman
political life.62 Another example of a matrimonial pawn is Octavia. She is suggested to have been
required to marry Antony, in order to seal the Second Triumvirate between Antony and Octavian,
since Lepidus (third triumvir) was never as strong a presence in the power struggle. 63 This sense of
requirement is supported by the fact that the marriage was in the same year as Marcellus (her
previous husband) death (40 BC). This evidently shows Octavia to have also played the role of political
tool in Roman political life, in the form of matrimonial pawn.64

Another way Roman women were used as political tools in Roman political life was the idea that their
image was used for propagandistic functions, which served the political interests of the associated
male.65 This shows that Roman women played the role of moral exempla. Livia best exemplifies this.
Dio tells us that Octavian had public statues granted to his sister, Octavia, and his wife, Livia, in 35
BC.66 He also records a senatorial decree of public statues to Livia in 9 BC. 67 The fact that these two
grants occurred at the very first stages of the new Imperial world, it shows that the grants were
significant for the history of the practice of erecting public statues to important Roman women in the
Imperial period.68 Nevertheless, the emphasis of the statue(s) of Livia to appear very Roman, in
terms of her appearance (severely conservative hairstyle, wearing a stola)69, suggests to act as a
sharp contrast to Cleopatra, who was not only an Egyptian (not a respectable Roman matrona70 like
Livia), but also a woman associated to Antony, who Octavian wanted to undercut.71 This shows that
the image of Livia is, not only used as a symbol for Rome and for the ruling family, but also used, by
Octavian, to enhance his own image and advance his political status against Antony. This shows Livia
to play a symbolic role, as moral exempla, in the political life of Octavian. Clearly, Roman women
played the role of political tools in Roman political life.

57
Bauman 2002: 118.
58
Galinsky 2005: 200.
59
Di Marco 2015.
60
Bauman 2002: 101.
61
Cassius Dio Roman History 54.6.
62
Bauman 2002: 118.
63
Zager 2014: 65.
64
Bauman 2002: 118.
65
Flory 1993: 295.
66
Flory 1993: 287.
67
Cassius Dio Roman History 55.2.5.
68
Flory 1993: 287.
69
McManus 2006.
70
McManus 2006.
71
Flory 1993: 295.

8
 SRN: 1571217

To conclude, it becomes evident that Roman women played various roles (kingmaker, unofficial
ruler, consort or confidante, regent, unofficial politician, and political tools of the prominent male)
in Roman political life, all of which influential in Roman politics or the political lives of the associated
males. Furthermore, it becomes apparent that, depending on the male political life in question,
Roman women were able to interchange between roles, even playing two roles simultaneously.
However, it is apparent that their roles are limited in terms of how much power they can exert; their
role solely depended on the males position in political life, except (arguably) Hortensia.

WORD COUNT: 2,996.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

PRIMARY:

Appian, The Civil Wars, trans. H. White [Loeb Classical Library] (London 1913)

Cassius Dio, Roman History, trans. E. Cary [Loeb Classical Library] (New York 1978).

Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals, trans. A.F. Church, and W.J. Brodribb [Perseus Digital Library Project]
(New York, 1942).

Livy, History of Rome, trans B.O. Foster [Perseus Digital Library Project] (Cambridge 1919).

Valerius Maximus, Memorable Deeds and Sayings, trans. D.R.S. Bailey [Loeb Classical Library]
(Cambridge 2000).

SECONDARY:

Allen, T.L. 2015. Livias Power in Ancient Rome, Young Historians Conference Paper 2
http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=younghistorians
(accessed 2 May 2017).

Barrett, A.A. 1996. Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire. London.

Barrett, A.A. 2002. Agrippina: Sister of Caligula, Wife of Claudius, and Mother of Nero. London.

Bauman, R. A. 2002. Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. London and New York.

Bell, S. and Carpino, A.A. (eds.). 2016. A Companion to the Etruscans. Malden, Oxford, and West
Sussex.

Di Marco, L. 2015. The Augustan Age: Role of Imperial Women, https://prezi.com/v32hjodcry5t/the-

augustan-age-role-of-imperial-women/ (accessed 2 May 2017).

Dixon, S. M. 2001. Reading Roman women: sources, genres and real life. Duckworth.

Flory, M.B. 1993. Livia and the History of Public Honorific Statues for Women in Rome, Transactions
of the American Philological Association 123, 287-308.

Fraschetti, A. 2001. Livia the Politician, in A. Fraschetti (ed.), Roman Women. Chicago and London.
100-117.

9
 SRN: 1571217

Galinsky, K. (ed.). 2005. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus. Cambridge, New York,
Melbourne, Cape Town, Singapore, and So Paulo.

Ginsburg, J. 2006. Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire.
Oxford and New York.

MacLachlan, B. 2013. Women in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook. London, New Delhi, New York, and
Sydney.

McManus, B.F. 2006. Livia: Princeps Femina, http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/livia.html

(accessed 3 May 2017).

Zager, I. 2014. The Political Role of Women in the Roman Elite, with Particular Attention to the
Autonomy and Influence of the Julio-Claudian Women (44 BCE to CE 68),
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/13904/dissertation_zager_i.pdf;sequence=1 (accessed
8th May 2017).

10