Man of the People or Spin Doctor?

[The Augusta]

By the late second/early third century AD when Dio Cassius was writing his Roman History, the reputation of Marcus Agrippa had survived untarnished for two hundred years. Indeed Dio goes so far as to call him the noblest man of his time, and his summing up of Agrippa

[Nephele]

Superb essay, Augusta! Yes, I can see how Agrippa's seizing of private art collections for the public domain might have made him unpopular with the nobility -- and perhaps even with those members of the middle class who might have obtained a few private treasures in their lifetime? I have a question for you -- do you know whether Livia was as vehemently opposed to Agrippa marrying Augustus' daughter and into the Imperial family, as she is portrayed in I, Claudius?

 

-- Nephele

[Primus Pilus]

Excellent summation Augusta and your argument is perfectly reasonable.

 

I have often wondered upon Agrippa's motivations. Considering our unfortunate deficiency in source material (in comparison the various actual emperors), Agrippa's role is often open to conjecture. For instance, as you address, was his refusal of personal reward an act of loyalty or truly just a play for winning favor and therefore feeding his own ambition? Regardless, it's quite clear that Agrippa never positioned himself as a serious rival to Octavian's supremacy when he very well could have. Of course he probably would've lacked the support of the aristocracy that remained, but such a condition had little impact on the political positioning of the last century or so. Frankly, considering the turmoil that Agrippa potentially could have caused, he deserves to be lauded for the stability he provided.

 

Though, I do suppose that some would argue that a man in such a position could've potentially attempted a restoration of the Republic, but that would've been a simple pipe dream by this time. Agrippa was raised in the triumviral/dictatorial era. Augustus' slow accumulation of power probably seemed perfectly natural considering Agrippa's environment.

 

--------

 

In any case and as an aside, I am often intrigued by Dio's use of the word monarchy in his narrative. Considering that his work came considerably later than Suetonius or Tacitus (who do not use it in relation to the principate as far as I can recall), it's interesting that either the perception has changed or that the writer now felt comfortable enough to call it for what it was without fear of retribution?

 

It does leave me curious on the translation though. Does anyone have, and can they (or would they) identify the original Greek word or phrase that was translated into English "monarchy". (How I wish Dio had written in Latin, alas)

[Drusus Nero]

In the series Livia did seem dead set against the match .

I think it was because she hoped to make her son,Tiberius, Julia's next husband?.

Edited April 27, 2007 by Drusus Nero

[Nephele]

In the series Livia did seem dead set against the match .

I think it was because she hoped to make her son,Tiberius, Julia's next husband?.

 

Yes, but I wondered how much of that was Robert Graves' embellishment to the story. There has been some speculation as to whether Livia was actually the schemer that she has been portrayed to be. I wondered whether Livia actually had that much to say at all over Augustus' choice of Agrippa as Julia's husband. I figured The Augusta could set us right on that, if there was any question about it.

 

-- Nephele

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Excellent article Augusta.

 

I too think Syme's assessment of Marcus Agrippa was a bit unfair, In my opinion Agrippa was a good, loyal friend and devoted Roman and there was no ulterior motive to his apparent modesty and self-effacement, I think he believed in the future of Rome and that the right man was at the helm and that Agrippa did everything in his power to support Augustus.

 

Just to add to Nephele's question,

What was the relationship between Agrippa and Livia like? I imagine it was something like a love/hate relationship, after all they were both partners in one way or another of the most powerful man in the known world. Did they get along with each other for the sake of Augustus? Was there a loathing but mutual respect for each other?

[caldrail]

To me it seems that Marcus Agrippa wasn't the sort of person who made a big deal of things. Not an extrovert then, but a man who preferred plain speaking and no nonsense. I wonder if Marcus Agrippa was a someone of limited imagination because he never comes to the fore during a period when everybody else is doing their best to do so. A dour personality? Well connected but perhaps at heart a very private man.

[The Augusta]

Superb essay, Augusta! Yes, I can see how Agrippa's seizing of private art collections for the public domain might have made him unpopular with the nobility -- and perhaps even with those members of the middle class who might have obtained a few private treasures in their lifetime? I have a question for you -- do you know whether Livia was as vehemently opposed to Agrippa marrying Augustus' daughter and into the Imperial family, as she is portrayed in I, Claudius?

 

-- Nephele

 

Thanks, Nephele.

 

As to your question - no. I can't see any reason for Livia to have been opposed to a marriage at that stage. Remember that Graves' whole plot hangs on Livia wanting Tiberius to follow Augustus from Day One - which probably has no basis in fact.

[The Augusta]

Just to add to Nephele's question,

What was the relationship between Agrippa and Livia like? I imagine it was something like a love/hate relationship, after all they were both partners in one way or another of the most powerful man in the known world. Did they get along with each other for the sake of Augustus? Was there a loathing but mutual respect for each other?

 

I guess we'll never know for sure, but my own personal view - and I stress it is personal - is that the two of them would have got along well enough, certainly during 'all that Marcellus business'. Interestingly enough, Syme holds a similar view that Livia and Agrippa may well have 'joined forces' during the events of 23 BC. Pure snobbery apart, I cannot see any political reason for them to loathe each other.

[Ursus]

Excellent article. I immensely enjoyed it, and agreed with your assessment. Agrippa was the perfect lieutenant - someone who could get the job done and enjoy power without stealing the Leader's glory.

[Ingsoc]

Agrippa probably understand that a man of humble origin like him could never become the lead man, so it's was sufficent for him to play the role of the trusted liutenent with hope than one of his sons will inhereted Augustus.

[The Augusta]

Agrippa probably understand that a man of humble origin like him could never become the lead man, so it's was sufficent for him to play the role of the trusted liutenent with hope than one of his sons will inhereted Augustus.

 

I agree, Ingsoc. I do think that part of the reason for Agrippa's modesty was his humble origin (although not all). However, it does offer one heck of a contrast to men of humble origins in the later principate, who obviously did not share Agrippa's scruples.

[Ingsoc]

I think you have to remember that in the late principate the highest positions were much more open to people of humble origins and even people of non-Roman origin (like the Severian dynasty).

[caldrail]

It is interesting that people of humble birth were able to climb the roman social ladder. The important point was that they stood by by a social better to do so in most cases, and as mentioned above, this was why Agrippa was happy to play second fiddle, although I agree he hoped that he or his children would benefit from this support in later years.