Agrippina The Younger Analysis

n
Tim Wong-See.

23133873.

Part B: With specific reference to the sources you have chosen, evaluate the ancient and modern interpretations of Agrippina the Younger.

Intro:
The ancient sources depict and write of Agrippina the Younger as a cruel and ruthless ruler who would stretch the power of women to boundaries unseen before. Tacitus describes her as a woman having a “masculine despotism”. However modern interpretations of Agrippina such as Bauman perceive a woman of power, skill, determination, one able to dominate her husband and able to achieve what was thought impossible for a woman. A level of uncertainty surrounds the interpretations of Agrippina during the time of her death. Tacitus’ The Annals provides an account, however,
this is disputed by modern scholar Bauman in Women And Politics In Ancient Rome .

Event 1: first marriage.
The ancient and modern sources reveal differing perspectives of Agrippina the Younger. Tacitus is known to be generally hostile to imperial rule and by displaying Agrippina’s power he portrays how easily manipulated and foolish the imperial rule is. Suetonius is acclaimed for his biographies on the Roman emperors which served as a model for later writers, he also made use of executive documents in the archives of the Senate. Dio Cassius is typically politically conservative and was a solider rather than a critical historian. One key event from 15AD -39 AD would be Tiberius’ arrangement (and Agrippina’s consent to?) of Agrippina’s first marriage in 28 AD at the age of 13 to Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. He was wealthy and had political connections, providing an opportunity for Agrippina to build a support base by gaining influence and wealth. While the marriage was beneficial for Agrippina and her status, ancient writers perceive Ahenobarbus as
a cruel and spiteful character. Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars depicts him as a man who was “detestable in every way” Tacitus also writes that he was “utterly detestable”. The fact that Agrippina married such a detestable man can be seen as a representation of her determined character to gain power, wealth and status, characteristics that Ahenobarbus possessed. Modern historian Bill Leadbetter’s The Ambition Of Agrippina Of The Younger notes that this initial marriage consisted of alternative motives writing that it was more “a match to benefit the family, not Agrippina”. This initial marriage gave her the attention to rise to prominence as a woman in Rome, Ahenobarbus was also friendly with Tiberius and this offered Agrippina protection from Sejaus, a determined solider and friend of Tiberius, who had previously removed her mother and 2 elder brothers.

Event 2: marriage to Claudius
Agrippina’s marriage to Claudius is often noted as a defining point in Agrippina’s intricate deceptive plan of manipulation in order to see her objectives come true and sees her “real ascension to power in Rome” (Leadbetter).
Tacitus states that from the moment Agrippina married Claudius “the country was transformed”, “her passion to acquire money was unbounded. She wanted it as a stepping stone to supremacy”. This marriage is also described as one dominated by the power and influence of Agrippina, “as soon as Agrippina moved into the palace she gained complete control over Claudius” (Dio Cassius) Agrippina is shown as a woman who hastily secured her means of dominance and privileges to elevate her power and status. Dio Cassius’ Roman History also notes Claudius’ feelings are “enslaved by Agrippina” and once the incestuous marriage had been legitimised by the Senate, Claudius arguing it was “beneficial for the state” (Suetonius), he married her without “a single day’s delay” (Dio Cassius) reinforcing Agrippina’s control and manipulation over Claudius. Agrippina was willing to do anything for Nero to become emperor, “let him kill me but let him rule” Tacitus. Modern historian Richard Bauman notes that this period shows Agrippina at the height of her career and influence in Rome, seen in Claudius’ eventual adoption of Nero in 50 and “a string of successes for Agrippina” (Bauman). According to Bauman, the adoption of Nero was one of numerous examples of Agrippina’s dominance
over Claudius as a powerful dominant wife. She was bestowed the status of Augusta by Claudius and became the first living consort of a living emperor to be so honoured. Dio Cassius relates that she attended a mock battle on the Fucine Lake wearing a military cloak. As a Roman soldier himself, Dio Cassius recognised that this action by Agrippina showed her association with and influence over the Roman army. It also showed Agrippina’s “determination to secure a position of unprecedented eminence for herself” (Bauman) by letting herself be seen in public events in a way that showed her unconventional level of power and influence. Tacitus also describes that “she was present behind a curtain for meetings of the Senate” which allowed her to “listen in on senatorial proceedings” (Leadbetter) and was unprecedented as women in Rome where women were forbidden from involvement in politics. She “often accompanied Claudius when he received foreign dignitaries” (Bauman) displaying her status as almost equal to that of Claudius himself as emperor.

Event 3: her death.

The ancient sources seem to point to Agrippina’s death as being orchestrated by her son Nero, however different reasons for it have been debated over. The relationship with Nero disintegrated over time. Agrippina is presented by Suetonius as a controlling and obsessive mother over Nero, he writes that Agrippina had an “over-watchful, over critical eye….on whatever Nero said or did (which) proved more then he (Nero) could stand”. This suggests that Nero would have been wanting to rid of his mother’s strict power and influence over him, this is combined with the complication that his relationship with Poppaea Sabina in 58 caused. According to written ancient sources such as Tacitus, Sabina was the cause of “the clash between Nero and his mother”. Tacitus’ account of Agrippina’s death is critiqued by Barrett’s as being “unconvincing” and that it was probably written out of “desperation”, moreover Barrett “suggests that he (Tacitus) was as puzzled as we are” when he wrote the account of Agrippina’s death. In a conflicting account Dio Cassius relates that “leaping up from her bed she tore open her clothing exposing her abdomen, and cried out "Anicetus, strike here, for this bore Nero". He also presents her as a murdering woman who will kill those who impede the way to achieving her ambitions as he says she was “slain by the very son to whom she had given the sovereignty and for whose sake she had killed her uncle and others.” However Leadbetter agrees that Nero was responsible for Agrippina’s death but says that “Nero’s decision to kill Agrippina, without reference to his advisors, was a supreme piece of willful folly” suggesting that Nero was immature in his actions and presenting Agrippina to be wise and correct in her actions. This would support a conclusion that personal, rather than political, reasons were involved in Agrippina’s ultimate demise.

Conclusion:

Ancient and modern interpretations vary in their overall display of Agrippina although a consistent image of a ruthless and determined woman show through. Despite the gender bias and vauge accounts Agrippina was without doubt a powerful a woman who achieved unprecedented success especially for a woman in Imperial Rome.