Assess ancient and modern images and interpretations of Agrippina.
Whilst the ancient sources see Agrippina II (Ag II) as a bloodthirsty individual of
“masculine despotism” (Tacitus) who stretched the boundaries of imperial women’s
power too far and disrespected the Roman nobility with her scheming and sexual
machinations, modern images and interpretations use the hindsight of history to
dissect the bias and to paint a picture of a powerfully remarkable woman and her
career as an able court politician.
Between Tacitus, who resented the Augustan principate, (especially due to his
experiences throughout the reign of Domitian) and Suetonius who was more
interested in glamorising marriages, affairs and scandals, the image of Ag II painted by
the ancient sources reveal a hostile disapproval of her immoral virtues and desires to
triumph in Rome’s patriarchal arena. Focusing on her use of “lecherous passion”
(Suetonius) to manipulate authority; “her private life was chaste - unless power was to
be gained” (Tacitus), such sources provide a ruthless prejudicial opinion. They
emphasise her deviousness attitude to amassing power as Dio explains “she was very
clever in making the most of her opportunities, and, partly by fear, partly by favours, she
won the devotion of those who were at all friendly towards him”, as well as her greed “her
passion to acquire money was unbounded” (Tacitus).
The most noted displays of criticism contained in the ancient sources against Ag II
are evident in Claudius’ reasons for their marriage and the accusations surrounding
the Emperor’s death in AD 54. Firstly, whilst Suetonius records it was her “kissing
and caressing” which wooed him as she “exercised it with noticeable effect on his
passions”; modern interpretations explain that their union was “good politics”
(Leadbetter) because of her “own dynastic position and undoubted political talents”
(Leadbetter), in that “Claudius acted as a result of consultation and deliberation rather
than of passion” (Salmon). Secondly, in terms of Claudius’ supposed murder, both
Tacitus’ account that “Agrippina had long decided on murder” and Dio’s
“Agrippina…made haste to forestall anything of the sort by poisoning Claudius,” illustrate
the fact that both writers attributed her to the crisis as she was an ambitious woman
seeking to secure the throne for her son; something condemned in such times.
On the contrary, the assessments by Anthony Barrett, Bill Leadbetter and other
modern historians separate the unwarranted judgments of Tacitus, Suetonius and
Cassius Dio from Ag II’s legitimate legacy. They have come to interpret Ag II as a
remarkable individual who stepped outside the norms of an imperial woman in such
a context and conducted a career, similar in a modern perception to a ‘politician’.
For despite her inability to individually ‘run for office’ Ag II was able to manipulate
the order of succession, the Senate and ruling Emperors, as well as gaining political
allies in other avenues of power, achieving successful prestige through court politics.
Viewing her influential impact in its entirety these historians have produced complete
interpretations and summaries from a modern perspective. From the coinage
evidence whereby she is face-to face with Nero and on the reverse of Claudius, and
with recorded instances of her ride in the ceremonial carriage, gold military cloak
and bestowing of the title ‘Augusta’ in AD 50, the modern sources define her
prominence as co-ruling the Empire. With the height of her power being during her
marriage to Claudius as she was a partner in the governance of Rome and with her
son legally in line to be the heir, modern historian Bill Leadbetter asks the question
“Why would she kill Claudius when she had everything she wanted as a colleague?”
The greatest distinction between the ancient and modern sources lay, because of
their contexts, in the acceptance of Ag II’s ambitions in light of her gender. What the
likes of Tacitus and Suetonius saw as “immoral, disreputable” and “often arrogant”
(Tacitus), the modern sources use in order to prove how she overcame the
limitations of her time and how “her career is a profound demonstration of both the
means available to an ambitious woman of imperial birth…and also the limits placed upon
it by masculine society” (Leadbetter) or “Agrippina represents a political paradox…the
woman who managed to exercise great power and influence in a society that offered no
constitutional role to powerful and influential women.” (Barrett) Her successes, whether
shunned or admired, reveal the power she wielded through ambitious decisions and
political alliances.