Caenis, patris concubina, ex Histria reversa…, Notes on Antonia Minor and Her Freedwoman Caenis

U svojim je tekstovima Pietro Kandler oblikovao priču o Antoniji Cenidi, oslobođenici Antonije Mlađe i kasnije Vespazijanovoj priležnici, pa je to povezao s njezinim povremenim boravcima u Istri oblikovavši tezu da je car sponzorirao izgradnju pulskog amfiteatra. Mali broj natpisa s imenima pripadnika Antonijine obitelji (oslobođenika i robova) ne govori tome u prilog. Cenida je mogla imati gospodarskih interesa u Istri, ali u arheološkoj i epigrafskoj baštini oni nisu vidljivi, pa se Kandlerovo tumačenje mora smatrati legendom koja nema čvršćeg uporišta u činjenicama.In a book published by the Pula city administration in 1876 in honour of the Trieste polyhistor Pietro Kandler (Trieste, 1804-1872), Notizie storiche di Pola (1876), a collection of his texts dedicated to Pula in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, there are four previously unpublished texts on the traces which Antonia Minor, Vespasian and Antonia Caenis left in Pula. Kandler’s claims and assumptions on the ancient history of Pula in general were often taken as reliable facts, and in the case that gave rise to an urban legend on Antonia Caenis, and how Vespasian had the amphitheatre built because he loved the ex-slave of Antonia Minor. Such stories still appear regularly in tourist materials, popular texts and guides, in online texts of a general nature, while the historiographic facts have never been examined. Antonia Minor was the daughter of the triumvir Mark Antony and Octavian’s sister Octavia, conceived in Athens where the couple stayed in the summer of 37 BC, and was born in Rome on January 31, 36 BC. Mark Antony set out from Athens for the East, where he married the Egyptian queen Cleopatra in Antioch, and thus became completely estranged from both his family in Rome and Octavian, ending in Alexandria in 30 BC after the defeat at Actium (31 BC). Antonia grew up in Rome, at the imperial court, together with her sister Antonia Maior, half-brothers and half-sisters. Cassius Dio states that Augustus gave the two Antoniae, his sister’s daughters, “money from their father’s estate”, which the emperor had confiscated. Mark Antony had estates in Italy and elsewhere, mostly in the East (Asia Minor, Egypt), but the sources do not mention Histria, so Kandler’s assumption that Antonia Minor had estates and even a palace in Pula stands on shaky grounds. The number of epigraphic attestations on the Antonii in Istria, which would indicate their heirs, slaves and freedmen, and thus show their economic presence in the area, is rather slim. There are only six such inscriptions, while far more numerous in northern Italy (in the Tenth Region), around Brescia, Altinum, Aquileia, and a few around Padua, a total of around fifty. In the Istrian inscriptions it is obvious that they are not liberti of the first generation, nor slaves. If Antonia would have had significant land holdings in southern Istria, the number of examples of this family name would surely be much higher. There would surely be more names of first-generation slaves and freedmen, who always indicated their status in inscriptions. Although a few years ago, following Pietro Kandler, followed in her turn by Alka Starac, we stated that women and liberated women “must have stayed in Pula from time to time to monitor their estates in southern Istria”, after a closer look this does not seem certain, although not entirely impossible. If such estates existed, their size and importance could not have been very pronounced, although the istrian epigraphy records names of other Roman families belonging to the highest social strata, to the political and economic elite (more than 30 Laecanii, 7 M(a)ecenii, 13 Palpellii, 15 Settidii, Several Statilii Tauri in Poreč and northern Istria). We must not forget the Sergii family, who are not represented by a large number of members in Pula, but who erected one of the most important monuments in the city today, the triumphal arch that bears their family name. If we take into account the imperial estates, it is clear that the Roman aristocratic elite had in Istria significant economic interests, which included land holdings, growing olives and vines, and the production of pottery (Fažana, Loron). However, the exact scope of interest of each individual family is, unfortunately, not known in detail. In 18 BC Antonia Minor married Drusus, son of Livia, second wife of Augustus, from her first marriage. They had three children, Germanicus, Livilla and Claudius, the future emperor. Germanicus had two children with Agrippina Maior, Agrippina Minor and Caius (later the emperor Caligula). Antonia Minor was instrumental in exposing the conspiracy organized by Seianus, the prefect of the Praetorian Guard, against the emperor Tiberius, her brother-in-law. Cassius Dio explicitly states, albeit in an anecdotal form, that Antonia dictated a letter to Tiberius, with the details of the conspiracy that was being prepared, to her slave, Caenis. When Caligula became emperor after Tiberius’ death, Antonia, his grandmother, was first celebrated, but only a few weeks after the emperor’s enthronement in 37 A.D. she committed suicide. She was very popular during her lifetime because of the stories that circulated about her virtue, gentle nature, beauty and kindness. Claudius rehabilitated her after four years of Caligula’s reign during which the memory of Antonia had to be suppressed. She had many faithful servants, among them perhaps the most famous was Caenis, whom she manumitted. Antonia Caenis was born as a slave, probably at the imperial court, where she also acquired the education needed to become a scribe and secretary of Antonia Minor. Since she died in 74 or 75, she could have been born in the first decade of the 1st century AD. Her origin is unknown, and recently the opinion was again expressed that she could have originated from Istria, where she apparently later had economic interests, although this is not supported by unequivocal evidence in Istria. Suetonius in Vespasian’s biography explicitly states that the emperor “after his wife’s death took his former mistress Caenis, the freedwoman of Antonia and her scribe, back to his house (revocavit), and kept her with him almost as a lawful wife as emperor.” This would imply that they were lovers before Vespasian married Flavia Domitilla in 38 A.D., with whom he had three children: Titus, Domitianus and Domitilla Minor. The wife and daughter died around 65- 66 A.D., while the sons became emperors after the father (Titus 79-81 A.D., Domitianus 871-96 A.D.). When he became emperor, Vespasian already had two adult sons, so remarriage could, if more male children were born from the marriage, complicate the inheritance process and create discord among possible heirs, which would surely have consequences throughout the state. Something similar happened to Claudius, he married Agrippina Minor who had a son from a previous marriage (Nero), although the emperor himself also had a son (Britannicus). As Antonia’s secretary, Caenis played an important role in the court, a role that included contacts with other members of the imperial family and their servants. Vespasian began his relationship with Antonia the Younger’s secretary before Antonia’s death, but he married Domitilla only a year or two decision to take her back after Domitilla’s death. Although Vespasian’s wife Domitilla passed away a few years before his accession to the throne, he is thought to have kept in touch with Caenis throughout his marriage, despite prolonged absences from Rome for military service. On the other hand, he may have had to end the relationship, because Caenis was the freedwoman of Antonia Minor, who fell out of favour with the new emperor Caligula, which is apparently why she committed suicide. After Antonia’s death, Caenis lived alone in a villa, which may have been conferred on by Antonia Minor, but we do not know what she was doing after she lost her mistress. If, in addition to the villa in Rome, she received other estates, she could have turned to entrepreneurship, manage her estates. It has been assumed, based on later news, after Vespasian’s accession to the throne, that she had estates in Histria, that Caenis had property in Istria. From 37 A.D. (death of Antonia Minor) and 65 A.D. (death of Flavia Domitilla) in Rome she probably moved among acquaintances, freedmen in high office at the imperial court, so it is possible to imagine that it was Caenis who suggested Vespasian to Claudius’ secretary Claudius Narcissus when Claudius, appointed Vespasian to command the Second Legion in 41 A.D. He later became consul in 51 A.D., but retired then from public life allegedly because he quarrelled with Agrippina Minor, mother of Nero, the next emperor. The relationship between Vespasian and Caenis has attracted historians because of Suetonius’ words and the assessments given by Cassius Dio. In Rome, concubinage was a permanent bond between a man and a woman without a formal marriage, and the example of Vespasian and Caenis is valuable for understanding this marital coexistence in the Roman legal system. While marriage served the procreation of Roman citizens, concubinage was an alternative in cases where legal consequences in the sphere of inheritance were to be avoided, as the female was generally of lower social status than the male, who most often already had children from the previous legal marriage. Caenis was already of the age when she probably could no longer give birth, but her lower legal status prevented her from concluding a valid marriage with Vespasian, so she was her concubine in every effect. She must have been very influential at Vespasian’s court, impressing the ancient chroniclers because of her loyalty, ability, connections and self-denial, because she never appeared on official occasions in Vespasian’s family, and thus the image of the Flavian dynasty strength remained intact, Titus and Domitian were still the only legitimate children and heirs of Vespasian. But Cassius Dio also claims that she became very rich because she received large sums from many sources, selling duties, and reports that it was believed that she did so in agreement with the emperor and in his name, so that she kept a part to herself. As there is no word on this in Suetonius, it seems that Dio used sources that were rather hostile to Caenis, although it should not be forgotten that Suetonius may have idealized Vespasian and thus concealed some details from his modus operandi. Caenis was in any case obviously very influential at Vespasian’s court, from his accession to the throne in 69 A.D. until her death in 74 or 75 A.D. A marble altar was erected in the memory of Caenis by her freedman Aglaus in Rome near Porta Nomentana. It has the text on the front, and rich reliefs on the sides and back. It is believed that she had a suburban residence in the area, and that she was buried there. This seems to be confirmed by the findings, at the beginning of the 20th century, of two lead fistulas with her name and the name of Tiberius Claudius Felix, who is clearly an imperial freedman. Her slaves and freedmen are known also on other inscriptions in Rome and Antium, while an inscription mentioning the manager of a balineus Caenidianus was also found on Via Nomentana. Other Caenis’ former slaves, who acquired the status of freedmen from the emperors, bear the additional name Caenidianus / Caenidiana, which testifies to the reputation that Caenis enjoyed in Roman society even after her death. This commemoration may have been limited to the last years of Vespasian’s reign, after Caenis’ death, and before the emperor’s, i.e. 74-79 AD, because Domitian seems to have had a completely different opinion of Caenis. Describing the emperor’s unfriendly temper, Suetonius recounts that he once refused Caenis when she wanted to kiss him on the cheek, but offered her his hand to kiss. And this piece of information finally leads us to the only clue that associates Caenis and Istria, because it happened, according to Suetonius, when she “returned from Istria”. We do not believe that this is strong enough evidence that Caenis (and before her perhaps Antonia Minor) had significant economic interests in Istria. It is possible, but the small number of members of Antonia’s wider, servile and libertine family does not confirm this, unlike onomastic indicators of other Roman patrician families. The interest of the Roman elite for entrepreneurship in Istria certainly existed, but according to the epigraphic data we have, the Antonii are not present in large numbers. We can therefore conclude that their role in the economic and social life of Istria in the 1st c entury A .D. w as r elatively small, and that Antonia Minor and her freedwoman Caenis did not have the estates, nor the importance that Pietro Kandler ascribes to them on the wave of romantic local patriotic historiography in Notizie storiche di Pola. And the Caenis – Vespasian – Pula connection even led to a fictional, historiographically and archaeologically unsubstantiated story about the emperor’s sponsorship of the construction of the Pula amphitheatre. However, is difficult to eradicate Kandler’s story in the print and electronic media, but it should be perceived as a legend, which is by definition an oral and written literary genre that combines real facts with imaginary elements, within a certain geographical and historical context