|
A poisoner, an incestophile, a seductress, a detestable profligate... this is what the ancients would have us believe about Julia Agrippina the Minor, better known as Agrippina the Younger (16 CE-59 CE). Indeed, some of her crimes were so heinous they would put a blush on the sallow cheeks of Lady Macbeth.?
But are the accusations even true??
Who Was Agrippina the Younger? Separating Truth from Fiction
Agrippina was the great-granddaughter of the Divine Caesar Augustus (63 BCE-14 CE) and sister, wife, and mother of the three final Julio-Claudian emperors. The first living “Augusta,” she was both an empress and a co-regent in her own right.
To understand the accusations leveled against her, one must first understand the few sources we have about her: Tacitus (56 CE-120 CE), Suetonius (69 CE-122 CE), and Cassius Dio (155 CE-235 CE). These three historians wrote during the reigns of emperors who were hostile toward the Julio-Claudian clan, anywhere from 50 to 200 years after she died. Otherwise put, to write positively about her was possibly to put their lives at risk.
Thus, the outrageous claims about Agrippina remain in some doubt. Historians in ancient Rome were expected to be biased and moralizing. Often, they were also deeply misogynistic.
For example, unless women are demure and retiring, Tacitus—the most prolific of the three—seldom says a kind word about them in his 30-volume Histories and Annals. According to him, Claudius' marriage to Agrippina was a turning point in the nation’s history. “From this moment the country was transformed,” he wrote. “Complete obedience was accorded to a woman.” He is also prone to reading his subject’s minds.?
Likewise, Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars relies on rumor for many of his narratives, seldom distinguishing word of mouth from genuine facts. While equally hostile to women, Cassius Dio’s Roman History also has a pronounced bias against the Julio-Claudian clan, in particular.
Besides these three, another source that crops up from time to time is Pliny the Elder (23 CE-79 CE) who was a contemporary of Agrippina. However, his interest was natural history as opposed to imperial intrigue, so unless it is a curious natural phenomenon (breech birth, double canine teeth, etc.), he seldom writes of Agrippina.?
All this makes it difficult for us to get to know Agrippina, but understanding some of the distortions in the narratives spun by these ancient chroniclers may enable us to see her more clearly.?
Excluded from the political arena, Roman women were a mere ornament for the men they represented and only considered praiseworthy when they were dutiful and modest.??Agrippina the Younger may have been many things, but humble and obedient do not come to the forefront. In fact, many Julio-Claudian women were known for exercising considerable political influence, and their reputations suffered greatly for it.
Her mother Agrippina the Elder was a courageous woman who devoutly believed in her divine birthright to the throne. This sense of celestial entitlement was most assuredly passed on to her eldest daughter. She had strength, ambition, and fortitude, characteristics reviled in women that were lauded in men. To describe these traits, the sources peppered their writings with pejorative descriptions of Agrippina, such as inpotentium muliebrem (female imperiousness), nimias spes (excessive ambition), potentia uxoria (power of a wife) and dominato regnum (abuse of power). |
