How Reliable Do You Judge Tacitus To Be In His Depiction Of Agrippina In Annals 12-14?

"Looking-glass, Looking-glass, on the wall, Who in this land is the fairest of all?"

In Agrippina's case the question should be 'who in the land is the most powerful of all?'. The wicked stepmother is a stock character familiar within western culture. A frequenter of fairy tales, this figure is the villainess, often imbued with magical powers and poisons ready to wreak havoc on the lives of her innocent stepchildren. However the wicked stepmother figure is deeply rooted within history far before the brothers Grimm began collecting oral tradition. According to Watson, 'it is Agrippina the Younger whose career as a stepmother most closely resembles the stereotype of the saeva noverca' (p.192, 1995). She claims that the saeva noverca had three distinguishing features 1) anonymity: she is representative of class rather than an individual character 2) her particular association with poison, one of several methods of privignicide in the myths and 3) her motivation: in nearly every case, this has to do with the inheritance question' (p.193, 1995). We see each of these characteristics in Tacitus' portrayal of Agrippina as a representative of elite woman close to power, with a taste for poison and who will stop at nothing to give her son the empire.

In the Annals Agrippina becomes 'even more stepmotherly than she was in reality' (p.192, Watson 1995). But the 'reality' which Tacitus had at his disposal was so close to the figure of the saeva noverca that how could he resist embellishment? With rumours consisting of poison, incest, murder, manipulation, adultery and parricide, Tacitus had more than enough to fill in any gaps. Criticism of the reliability of his portrayal of Agrippina stems from the repetition of the saeva noverca stock figure: hers is the mirror image of Livia only a few books before. According to Rutland 'Tactitus' concept of the female character is clear [.] a pattern of female psyche presents itself' (p.15, 1978) he defines them as 'unreason, emotion and deception' with 'a desire or drive which has no rational control' and 'charges of poisoning and witchcraft' (p.16, Rutland 1978). From this descri ption of Tacitus' female characters we see what Santoro L'Hoir describes as 'women who have strayed so far from traditional female roles' they 'are not only unfeminine but also prodigious freaks to be shunned and feared' (p.24, 1994).

20th century feminist critics Gilbert and Gubar make an integral point which can be utilised here. They discuss the way in which women are indoctrinated by patriarchal dramatizations of the 'angel-woman and the monster-woman' (p.36, 2000) in literature. To complete their examination of this they refer to the Snow White fairy-tale. They argue that 'the central action of the tale [.] arises from the relationship between these two women: the one fair, young, pale, the other just as fair, but older, fiercer; the one a daughter, the other a mother; the one sweet ignorant, passive, the other both artful and active; the one a sort of angel, the other an undeniable witch' (p.36, 2000). The relevance of the argument here is that it is nothing which the ancients have not already seen. Embedded in antiquity is a tradition of Circes, Clytemnestras, Didos, Phaedras, Scyllas, Medeas, and Amazons: monster-women who pose a clear threat of chaos to the order of civilised, patriarchal society. These women are set against the good and silent Lavinias, Octavias, Iphegineias and Electras. Gilbert and Gubar ask the question 'is the pen a metaphorical penis?' (p.3, 2000), implying that men, as the wielders of the pen, have the power to condemn and control through their teachings and writings, especially when it comes to women. This can be seen in Virgil's portrayal of women in the Aeneid. The figure Dido is associated with the Oriental extravagance and luxury of the foreign queen Cleopatra (acting as propaganda against Antony and Cleopatra) and is a dux femina ending her life with a woman's wild emotion: 'Dido full of wild fears [.] Her cheeks trembling and flecked with red, her bloodshot eyes rolling, she was pale [.] she climbed the high pyre in a frenzy' (p.101, West 1990). We see this same 'wild' emotion in another dux femina, Juno: 'fierce and unforgetting anger' (p.3, West 1990) 'wild with rage' (p.243, West 1990). All this is set against Lavinia's one action: 'when Lavinia heard these words [.] her burning cheeks were bathed in tears and the deep flush glowed and spread over her face' (p.304, West 1990). All the good Lavinia is able to do is blush and see herself married off as means of alliance. Thus the opposing archetypes of 'monster-woman' and 'angel-woman' are deeply rooted within Latin literature and Roman women are readily informed how they will be thought of if they stray from their traditional female roles.

One can see the polarity described above in Agrippina and Octavia. Unlike Agrippina who takes centre stage (much as the active monster-woman will aim to do) Octavia - much like Lavinia - is almost non-existent. In fact, aside from being briefly mentioned in her marriage to Nero, Octavia is most prominently spoken of at the death of her brother Britannicus in which Tacitus writes: 'Octavia too, though raw in years, had learned to hide pain, affection and every emotion' (p.252, Woodman 2004). Thus to be a 'good' woman in Roman society is to act like Octavia and hide 'every emotion', something Agrippina appears incapable of doing once her power begins to wane under Nero. Agrippina is seen at her most desperate when Tacitus records that she 'was so carried away by the fervor of retaining her powerfulness that [.] when Nero was warm with wine and with banqueting, she quite often offered herself to him in his drunken state, smartly made up and prepared for incest [...] those closest to them were already noting their reckless kisses' (p.275, Woodman 2004). Whereas Octavia is the sexless, chaste, young queen, Agrippina is willing to commit incest with her own son to remain in power. However this rumour could be part of damnatio memoriae which Tacitus employs to present the unreason of women in power and the unnatural lengths they are willing to go to in order to maintain the power that has corrupted them in the first place. He sees that she has committed incest with her uncle in order to gain power and he further damns her image by extending this design to her son.

John Matthews argues that Tacitus 'went back in time, to find the roots of tyranny in the very regime established by Augustus as a solution for the political crisis of the Roman republic' (p.291, 2007). The solution Tacitus delves into was, of course, monarchy. However, Tacitus' depiction of the Julio-Claudian dynasty consists of 'women as usurpers of masculine power [.] each woman [.] involves herself in political matters of the highest rank' (p.6, Sontoro L'Hoir 1994). Moving power from the republic to one man gave women, according to Tacitus, the chance to taste power. Working through their husbands by means of manipulation - or other schemes particularly associated with the cunning of women, such as sex or poison - Tacitus shows that the decline of the Roman Empire rests on the reckless schemes of women. As most will note, emperor and empire share a symbiotic nexus in which the success of the empire depends solely upon its emperor. Having power over the emperor could potentially mean control of Rome. Upon the marriage of Agrippina and Claudius, Tacitus records that: 'it was a result of this that community was overturned, and there was universal obedience to a female who did not [.] sport Roman affairs through recklessness: it was a tightly controlled (so to speak) manlike servitude' (p.218, Woodman 2004). Thus in taking hold of Claudius Rome becomes servile to a woman and she becomes 'manlike' an unnatural quality in women whose lot in Roman life was not to hold power.

The most prominent event of Agrippina's life is the rumoured poisoning of her husband by mushrooms. Tacitus records: 'It was then that Agrippina - long determined on her crime, quick with the opportunity offered, and not short of servants - debated about the type of poison so that her act would not be betrayed by anything sudden or precipitate; one the other hand, if she selected a slow-wasting one, Claudius on nearing his end might recognise the deception and return to his loving son. She favoured something choice, which would disturb his mind and defer death' (p.243, Woodman 2004)

Tacitus makes clear that Agrippina is afraid Claudius might 'return to his loving son' (p.243, Woodman 2004), a fear for any saeva noverca who are known for 'influencing the husband against his children' (p.94, Watson 1995). There is a build-up of tension as Tacitus allows us into the mind of Agrippina as he presents her choice of poison. Thus he does not merely record events, but adds a dramatic twist to the accounts. Wiseman notes that 'history as drama was a natural way of thinking, for both Greeks and Romans' (p.19, 1994). If this is the case one can arguably see the similarity between Agrippina the stepmother and Seneca's most infamous stepmother Juno as she discusses her jealousy of her stepson Hercules: 'her son, too, gets his promised star [.] Rage, do your worst! Stamp out his great ambitions! [.] turn me upside-down and make me ready to do what a stepmother should' (pp.141-4, Wilson 2010). Just as Juno, Agrippina is ready to do as a 'stepmother should' and stamp out the ambitions of Claudius, Britannicus and any other threats. Although the situations of the two women differ, the similarity is clear, the stepson must not rise. This can be seen in her disposal of Junius Silanus, formerly betrothed to Octavia and a possible contender for the empire and in how she treats Britannicus: 'moved by these (as it were) charges, Claudius inflicted exile or death on each of his son's best tutors and installed as his guards those provided by his stepmother' (p.231, Woodman 2004). Through his characterisation of Agrippina Tacitus is able to exploit the wicked stepmother theme emphasising the factual victimisation of Britannicus and the deceit by which Nero gains the empire through a popular story-telling mode.

Bishop sees this reading of Hercules Furens as a more overt one directed at Nero in order to 'feed his maglomania to be called a Hercules whose murders were brought on by that Juno of a woman Agrippina' (p.309, 1985). In fact in his reading he casts Agrippina (at her most powerful between the months of 54 - 55 AD) as Lycus, arguing 'the story pattern requires an assassination with usurpation [.] of the murdered king' (p.307, Bishop 1985). As the murderer of Claudius, Agrippina is basically a usurper made foreign by her gender. Drama was often used as a means of making political points and the mythological placement usually protected the concealed messages of playwrights. If this was written after the death of Agrippina then it presents Seneca as showing both Agrippina as hostile and tyrannical as well as believing she deserved her comeuppance as a murderer. Although Nero did not kill his mother to avenge Claudius, historians Holland and Warmington offer psychological reasons for the necessary suppression of Agrippina explaining Tacitus' statement that 'finally, deeming her overburdensome wherever she was, he decided to kill her' (p.276, Woodman 2004). Warmington argues that 'the matricide remains inexplicable except in terms of a desperate act of Nero to liberate himself from the psychological domination' (p.76, 1969). Holland asserts that Nero's sexual tastes were affected by the psychological domination in alleging that in the older Acte one can recognize 'a teenager casting off the shackles of a dominant mother by falling into the arms of a mother-substitute' (p.81, 2000). All of this supports Tacitus' descri ption of Agrippina's 'womanly unruliness and excessive hopes' (p.239, Woodman 2004) as well as being 'callous and menacing, able to give command to her son but not to endure his commanding' (p.242, Woodman 2004) and points towards Nero needing to kill her because she was indeed uncontrollable and domineering.

The sources of Tacitus and Suetonius clash on the mushroom incident. Suetonius records: 'it is commonly agreed that Claudius was killed by poison. There is, however, disagreement as to where and by whom it was administered' (p.193, Edwards 2000). There appears to be a tension between how they portray Agrippina. Unlike Tacitus who concerns himself purely with historiography, Suetonius chooses biography as his genre. Therefore whereas Tacitus chronologically arranges annalistically, Suetonius arranges his histories by emperor and focuses on their character, leading other historical figures around the emperors - such as Agrippina - to become marginalised. Thus in Suetonius Agrippina takes a smaller role opposed to how she is presented in Tacitus as a major figure in Rome's history. Tacitus chooses to perpetuate the rumour that Claudius was poisoned by his wife. However Suetonius does not commit to any story and merely offers speculation which ultimately lends a more charitable account of Agrippina. In fact, Agrippina appears very much to disappear in Suetonius' account, only to reappear in the thematic recounting of Nero's list of victims. Agrippina is neither usurper nor tyrant-maker, but another victim of Nero for no other reason than 'applying sharp scrutiny to his words and deeds and correcting him' (p.213, Edwards 2000). However one could argue that these differing portrayals of Agrippina stem not only from differences in genre but also in the dissimilar beliefs and purposes the writers hold. Whereas Suetonius presents the degeneracy of the empire based completely on the emperor's fixed and pre-existing evil character ('Nero lapsed from the virtues of his ancestors yet produced each one's legacy of vice' (p.195, Edwards 2000)), Tacitus looks into the issues behind monarchy and as we see in his accounts of Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius and Nero a lot of it has to do with the chance given to women for the opportunistic seizing of power not available to them before.

Although Tacitus utilises a popular stock figure and story cycle in his account of Agrippina, it does not necessarily render his portrayal unreliable. Although Agrippina has been blown up immensely in her stepmother role in the Annals, with the coinciding evidence from other accounts, it can be argued that Tacitus merely exaggerates what is already there: an overly ambitious woman who will stop at nothing to forward her son. Suetonius presents room for manipulation claiming that Claudius was 'at the mercy of his freedmen and his wives [.] he acted not as an emperor but as a servant [.] unaware and ignorant' (p.186, Edwards 2000). If there is so much evidence of Claudius' servility and Agrippina's manipulation then the main theme of 'women's intrusion into public spaces associated with male political activity' (p.14, Sontoro L'Hoir 1994) is arguably reliable. Agrippina's rise and decline falls in with many other dramatic representations of hubris, presenting how ancient historians could order their work akin to the didactic lessons of the dramatist: something featuring frequently in Herodotus. I would argue that considering the comparison to other sources Tacitus presents a reliable account of Agrippina's role in the empire, if allowing his elite male judgement to lean towards bias.