Mock Questions- how do modern and ancient sources interpret Agrippina’s image? (15 marks)
Ancient sources depict Agrippina as an opportunistic, masochistic and power hungry fiend- her sexual escapades, lust for wealth and absolute control in marriage and second hand politics. But we must consider the purpose and audience of the male historians at the time- there was no such thing as a woman in power, and it would have severely grated the egos and traditions of men like Tacitus. Suetonius was not only a man, but sometimes exaggeratedly biased. Their paternal portrayals of this woman well beyond her time would not be flattering. Their purpose was to aspirate unquestioned propaganda, and their audience had no questions.

However, our modern day female and male historians have the advantage of time and a political revolution. Although Bauman admits that this woman had an “indifference to conventional morality”, modern scholars have not only provided us with an account of her actions in the context of her time, but they now present us with motive and agenda. It is clear when we apply her actions to modern context, that she was in fact a woman who’s “keen intellect” [Bauman] guided her every action.

Tacitus was a man of the republic who found every opportunity to make reference to Agrippina’s sexual and masculine schemes to highlight how much of a negative antithesis she was to the traditional Roman woman. He presents a highly critical appraisal of her image, claiming that she was a ‘relentless enemy” whose “private life was chaste unless power was to be gained” Tacitus brings forth the image of a power hungry, and villainous woman wanting wealth as a “stepping stone to success”. A woman who, during the reign of Claudius “put it forth that she was a partner in the empire acquired by her ancestors” and identifies that “complete power was accorded to a woman…in an