Sources from ancient historians tend to be more ill towards Agrippina because she was a woman and she stepped come forthside the expected role of a R.C. matron. In contrast to this, modern historians consider the context of her speckle and approach her with a neutral attitude. However, most of the historians present her teammate to three main stereotypes- the seducer and murderer of Claudius, the scheming and imperative mother figure or the imperial woman who goes beyond her matronly and aristocratic role. Tacitus, an ancient historian, was the closest to Agrippinas time and was distant towards her since he dis interchangeabled the principate, instead favouring the senate to be in power. He portrayed Agrippina as a deceptive, ill- mannered woman and is highly- bantam when he relates her legion(predicate) schemes and intrigues in her pursuit of power non only for the manpower in her life, but also, and more despicably, for herself, as can be seen in the following quote from The Annals. From this bit the country was transformed. achieve obedience was accorded to a woman - and non a woman like Messalina who toyed with national affairs in order to satisfy her appetites. This was a rigorous, almost masculine despotism. In public Agrippina was austere and oft arrogant. Her private life was unadulterated - unless power was to be gained.
Her passion to acquire money was unbounded. She treasured it as a stepping lapidate to supremacy. This, however, is not highly out of the ordinary, for a writer of his time, as the role of the Roman matron was not to strive for political advantage h erself, but to support her hubby in his ach! ievements. Agrippina disregarded the lieu quo and thus became the target for many slanderous exaggerations through imitation in ancient writings, and became the prototype of all... If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment