More on murder theory

[David Wilson-Okamura]

Several years ago, one of our former members, Jean-Yves Maleuvre,
launched a website, http://virgilmurder.org, which argues that Virgil
was murdered by Augustus. I'm still a skeptic, but a few days ago
Maleuvre contacted me to say that the website has been updated with a
new look and new evidence. I promised that I would relay this
information here.

[falmouth]

Crikey, poetry was a dangerous profession indeed...

Not only Vergil, but probably Tibullus, Calvus and Bion (according to
the arguments on Maleuvre's website). To whom one can add Gallus
(although he beat Augustus to the physical deed) and, earlier, Cinna
(maybe they were after the poet after all...!). Ovid could count
himself very lucky, in the circumstances.

It is striking, though, that none of Propertius, Horace or Ovid refer
to Vergil's death (subject to some interpretations of Hor. Odes 4.12).
Of roughly contemporary references, I can only think of Domitius
Marsus' epigram, but I wouldn't be surprised to be corrected.

On Mar 23, 5:01 pm, David Wilson-Okamura <dok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Several years ago, one of our former members, Jean-Yves Maleuvre,

> launched a website,http://virgilmurder.org, which argues that Virgil

[John B. Van Sickle]

shades of Herman Broch....

[falmouth]

I've just started reading Anton Powell's Virgil the Partisan at the
moment and was struck by a point which seems reasonably obvious but
had not really occurred to me.

Powell (rightly, I think) emphasises that following Actium and/or the
taking of Alexandria, the impression of immediate stability and peace
is coloured by hindsight. In reality, he suggests, many people would,
given past history, fear that Italy would again be subject to
internecine unrest. This enables him to make the brute point that
Vergil was potentially sticking his neck on the line insofar as open
praise of Octavian is concerned, tying his own fortunes firmly to
Octavian's. So 'subversive' interpretations must be thought highly
unlikely. I was quite taken with that argument, until it occurred to
me that if the analysis was correct, wouldn't a self-interested poet
as politician want to keep a few 'get out of jail free' cards up his
sleeve, that is to say if the worst did come to the worst and Octavian
went the way of Julius Caesar, Sextus Pompey and Mark Antony, the poet
could reveal his 'true allegiances' via his 'subversive further
voices'...?

I should say that I'm enjoying Powell's book so far, although he does
try to give the impression that he is the first Vergilian critic to
ever open Appian's Bellum Civile or Dio's Roman History (I exaggerate
but I think he does put this a bit high).

On Mar 23, 5:15 pm, "John B. Van Sickle" <jvsic...@brooklyn.cuny.edu>
wrote:

> shades of Herman Broch....
> At 01:01 PM 3/23/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >Several years ago, one of our former members, Jean-Yves Maleuvre,

> >launched a website,http://virgilmurder.org, which argues that Virgil

> >was murdered by Augustus. I'm still a skeptic, but a few days ago
> >Maleuvre contacted me to say that the website has been updated with a
> >new look and new evidence. I promised that I would relay this

> >information here.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

> wouldn't a self-interested poet
> as politician want to keep a few 'get out of jail free' cards up his
> sleeve,

Perhaps, if he were merely backing a horse and wanted to hedge; but what if he were genuinely committed to the cause? If any cause could move Vergil, it was surely Tota Italia against--what? Magnus Pius, as Sex. Pompeius had called himself, was dead, not that one can see why Vergil should have cared for him; only the self-indulgent Antony who had thrown in his lot with the enemy, his Aegyptia coniunx. (Declaring war on her not him was a master-stroke of propaganda on Imp. Caesar's part, which means that the sentimemnts and prejudices it was aimed at arousing really were there to be aroused and really were there.)

[falmouth]

One can envisage the next round being not necessarily <"tota Italia" +
Octavian> qua 'Italus' versus Antony/Cleopatra or anyone else (Carm.
de Bello Actiaco; cp. Aen. 8.678 where the assiduous subvert would see
a deliberate ambiguity; was italia's oath really so uniformly 'sponte
sua' as it's put in in the res gestae - any city which refused would
presumably be taken to be volunteering for the next round of
confiscations if not worse?) but <"tota Italia" + X> versus Octavian
or simply X v Octavian.

X could be filled by any number of individuals or groups. Lots of
Antonine veterans floating around the place, presumably still quite a
few disaffected senators (albeit a substantially reduced number of
these...). Lepidus, of course, managed to mount some sort of
conspiracy and subsequent ones show that Augustus could fear going the
same way as Julius for some time thereafter. Charismatic individuals
like Crassus (and, indeed, Gallus) needed, it seems, to be nipped in
the bud by Augustus, even after the rubble has settled.

'tota italia' had not been treated well by Octavian (cf. Prop's only -
I think - use of 'Italia' in a political context 1.22  "Italiae duris
funera temporibus" the corpses of Perusia) and is presumably not
unwavering in her affections, in the same way that no-one had the
monopoly over the slogan 'libertas'. So I'd agree that if any cause
laid claim to Vergil, "tota italia" might be thought to be near or at
the top of the list, but it's an open question as to whether Octavian
is identifiable with that cause. Another possibility is that he's
really not so very different to Antony, and he too needs to have his
wings clipped (Geo. 4.106-7).

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

But give me the slightest historical reason (not fancy reading, or abstract
speculation) to show that any of this mattered two hoots to Vergil. *He* had
been well enough treated by Imp. Caesar, whatever anyone else's case might
be; and the notion that he needed his wings clipped on principle is an
aristocratic/oligarchic value that Vergil had no reason to share any more
than the Roman crowds who had hounded Caesar's murderers out of town and
would demand that his heir become dictator.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237

[falmouth]

He'd come within a hair's breadth of being a victim of Octavian's
confiscations according to such historical record as one has
concerning V. himself. If this is true and we can ascribe to him a
modicum of sympathy with his immediate neighbours, he had every reason
to feel at least ambivalent about Octavian's methods and achievements.
Why deny V. a modicum of sympathy: cf. Meliboeus and "mecum miseratus
agrestis" etc. etc. etc. etc. If every other dispossessed Mantuan had
cause to hate Octavian, why not Vergil - do we imagine he rejoiced in
his good luck to the exclusion feeling sorry for the rest - does your
V. really only care about *He*? And surely it's not too fancy or
abstract to suppose that the civil wars, themselves, provoked a
reaction of genuine repulsion which coloured all concerned? What is
the unfancy interpretation of the need to clip the warring bees
leader's wings...? Is it just about bees?

If the spectrum is (i) V. engages with politics/history and whole-
heartedly adopts the O. party line; (ii) V. engages with politics/
history with some nuance and sophistication, and brings to bear
alternative viewpoints and a thoroughly humane sense of regret at
recent history, including the conduct of all the leading protagonists;
(iii) V. engages with politics/history and is a through-and-through
anti-Augustan. I'd be perfectly happy to cede the line before (iii),
but why should (i) be more likely than (ii)? Surely the reverse?

(the thrust of my original post was directed at rebutting what seemed
to me to be a prima facie attractive (but narrow) point - namely that
V.'s open praise of O. comes with a degree of risk => must be sincere,
given O.'s probably somewhat precarious hold on power even after 29BC
and my last post was mainly directed at examples of how precarious
that might be, and trying to distinguish between "tota Italia" and
O.'s cause, but I think we've found ourselves back at the familiar and
more general battleground...).

On Mar 27, 1:20 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

Once one has thrown in one's lot with any leader or any faction, one has to want him or it to win; that does not mean being blind to his or it faults, but one knows which side one's bread is buttered.

> > But give me the slightest historical reason (not fancy reading, or abstra=
> ct
> > speculation) to show that any of this mattered two hoots to Vergil. *He* =
> had
> > been well enough treated by Imp. Caesar, whatever anyone else's case migh=

> t
> > be; and the notion that he needed his wings clipped on principle is an
> > aristocratic/oligarchic value that Vergil had no reason to share any more
> > than the Roman crowds who had hounded Caesar's murderers out of town and
> > would demand that his heir become dictator.
> >
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone

> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est,=

> > > Perhaps, if he were merely backing a horse and wanted to hedge; but wha=

> t
> > > if he were genuinely committed to the cause? If any cause could move
> > > Vergil, it was surely Tota Italia against--what? Magnus Pius, as Sex.
> > > Pompeius had called himself, was dead, not that one can see why Vergil

> > > should have cared for him; only the self-indulgent Antony who had throw=
> n
> > > in his lot with the enemy, his Aegyptia coniunx. (Declaring war on her =
> not
> > > him was a master-stroke of propaganda on Imp. Caesar's part, which mean=
> s
> > > that the sentimemnts and prejudices it was aimed at arousing really wer=

> e
> > > there to be aroused and really were there.)
> >
> > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > I've just started reading Anton Powell's Virgil the Partisan at the
> > > > moment and was struck by a point which seems reasonably obvious but
> > > > had not really occurred to me.
> >
> > > > Powell (rightly, I think) emphasises that following Actium and/or the
> > > > taking of Alexandria, the impression of immediate stability and peace
> > > > is coloured by hindsight. In reality, he suggests, many people would,
> > > > given past history, fear that Italy would again be subject to
> > > > internecine unrest. This enables him to make the brute point that
> > > > Vergil was potentially sticking his neck on the line insofar as open
> > > > praise of Octavian is concerned, tying his own fortunes firmly to
> > > > Octavian's. So 'subversive' interpretations must be thought highly
> > > > unlikely. I was quite taken with that argument, until it occurred to
> > > > me that if the analysis was correct, wouldn't a self-interested poet
> > > > as politician want to keep a few 'get out of jail free' cards up his

> > > > sleeve, that is to say if the worst did come to the worst and Octavia=
> n
> > > > went the way of Julius Caesar, Sextus Pompey and Mark Antony, the poe=

> t
> > > > could reveal his 'true allegiances' via his 'subversive further
> > > > voices'...?
> >
> > > > I should say that I'm enjoying Powell's book so far, although he does
> > > > try to give the impression that he is the first Vergilian critic to
> > > > ever open Appian's Bellum Civile or Dio's Roman History (I exaggerate
> > > > but I think he does put this a bit high).
> >
> > > > On Mar 23, 5:15 pm, "John B. Van Sickle" <jvsic...@brooklyn.cuny.edu>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > shades of Herman Broch....
> > > > > At 01:01 PM 3/23/2009, you wrote:
> >
> > > > > >Several years ago, one of our former members, Jean-Yves Maleuvre,

> > > > > >launched a website,http://virgilmurder.org, which argues that Virg=

> il
> > > > > >was murdered by Augustus. I'm still a skeptic, but a few days ago

> > > > > >Maleuvre contacted me to say that the website has been updated wit=

[Martin50]

I've often thought that Stalin was Syme's model for Augustus (can
anyone correct me?) and I found myself using Stalinist language in a
previous post. As to the murder theory, we might think of Stalin and
Gorki - I think (this is distant memory at work) that some thought
that Gorki had a reputation so high that even Stalin couldn't just
wipe him out, Mandelstam-style or Trotsky-style, but that
surreptitious means to undermine G's health were found by the secret
police.
The Soviet Union was very new, very ramshackle and widely hated.
Stalin held it together by a miracle of propaganda backed up with
unbelievably ruthless force. It still collapsed within 40 years of
his death, the sheer horror associated with the Vozhd being one reason
why it could not survive. The Roman Empire of the first century was
much the same - Pompey's eastern and Caesar's western conquests being
remarkably recent. I presume that most Russians in 1935 would have
welcomed the return of the monarchy and that most Romans in 25 would
have welcomed the return of the Republic.
But we have to reckon with the fact that Augustus' construction
survived for four or five centuries and more - like it nor, the
current existence of what we might call the Western world is still to
some degree his achievement. It's part of that achievement that he
never became a figure of horror as Stalin did and it's a bit hard to
see how even in ancient conditions he could have avoided that fate if
there were nothing objective about the reputation he actually had.
There were crimes laid to his charge, particularly in respect of
Cicero and in respect of Perusia, but he was not the kind of
stupendous mass murderer that Stalin was. The three clear cases where
he turned on friends or friends of a sort, Cicero, Salvidienus and
Gallus, still look rationally explicable.
Bearing this in mind and bearing in mind what Leofranc says about lack
of evidence, I don't see how we can assign a really high probability
to Aug's turning on V, his best supporter in the intellectual world,
even though there must have been things that strained their
relationship. The probability that V was, say, a cancer victim has
surely to be considerably higher.
- Martin Hughes

On Mar 27, 5:36 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Once one has thrown in one's lot with any leader or any faction, one has to want him or it to win; that does not mean being blind to his or it faults, but one knows which side one's bread is buttered.
>

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

Surely Syme's model was Mussolini, in the same place, with the March on Rome
and the New Order, the propaganda of reviving ancient institutions--and the
widespread consent of the masses, who had no attachment to the
constitutional system that he overthrew. I do not believe for one minute
that most Romans, other than the _nobiles_, would have welcome a genuine
restoration of the Republic; they remembered the horrors of freedom only too
well--the freedom of Caesar and Pompey, of Milo and Clodius, not to mention
the massive corruption whose climax was achieved in the consular elections
of 54. Even the city masses, who might have been thought to have had an
economic interest in a system that commodified their votes, had shown no
love for it when Brutus and Cassius offered it back to them.

And, just as Augustus claimed to be restoring the Republic, so Mussolini
claimed to be continuing the Risorgimento--a claim that at this distance
does not seem quite so far-fetched; the grandiose language of public
monuments merely perpetuates that of the liberal monarchy, and the Altar of
the Fatherland in Rome, which till recently it was fashionable to deride,
passes amongst foreigners for archetyple Fascist architecture when it fact
it was completed in 1911, while Mussolini was still a left-wing journalist
in Milan. (And after all, the conquest of Abyssinia was simply unfinished
business from the 1890s.)

As for Augustus' turning on his friends, Vedius Pollio is far more in case
than Cicero, only no-one feels the slightest sympathy for the fellow. It was
Cicero who had said 'laudandus adulescens ornandus tollendus'; C. Caesar as
he still was might (this is merely speculation) have been willing to let him
live as too thoroughly discredited by defeat and duping to be a threat, or
at least not put him at the top of the enemies' list, but if Antony wanted
his revenge, well, tollendus senex.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone

OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat

[falmouth]

Martin, I hope you didn't read my posts as endorsing the fantastical
suggestion that Vergil was murdered by Augustus... There's no reason
whatsoever to suggest that Vergil died otherwise than by the fever
which he is recorded as having contracted. I think one can be 100%
sure that he was not 'murdered' by Augustus, (e.g. it was Augustus who
ensured that the Aeneid was not destroyed).

Leofrranc, it occurs to me that a different perspective might
accommodate to some extent some of our differences. Perhaps we would
agree that a truthful account of Octavian's exploits prior to say 29BC
would not leave him in a flattering light (and would be entirely
unwelcome, to say the least). We would probably also agree that the
Georgics and the Aeneid *does* purport to show Octavian in a
favourable light. Does it amount to this - either we see V. in the
Georgics and Aeneid, insofar as they touch on Octavian, as an attempt
at a whitewash (of whatever subtlety) (which is the thrust of Powell's
argument, although I am not doing it justice) or we allow that V.
leaves vestiges of the 'truth' (or at least contrary viewpoints)
available to reader?

On 28 Mar, 16:29, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

Para. 2: Yes, it does amount to that, and I'm on the whitewash side, if
that's what you call writing in his interest.

[falmouth]

Then, I suppose the question becomes how thick is the white paint? Or
does he do this to the maximum of his capabilities with uniform
conviction?

The "further voice(s)" type analysis is maybe not as incompatible with
'writing in O's interest' as it is usually taken. The first line of
the anti-anti-augustans is something like, "well is it really at all
historically credible that Vergil would be poking away at O.'s tender
spots deliberately and palpably with the intention of highlighting
them to criticise O.?" and the natural answer is "no, not really". The
hypothetical answer that the worst of the digs are suficiently subtle
to escape O.'s notice, is not really very attractive either (although
this is perhaps a deliberate mischaracterisation of the pessimists by
the optimists, their point being rather that the graver the implicit
criticism, the more distance there is from the surface, thus enabling
the 'defence' 'is the criticism really there at all?'). But once it's
recognised that in order to come up with something that comes across
as favourable to O., one needs a generous smattering of applied
fiction, the question becomes rather different. One can imagine a V.
liberally and overtly applying that fiction but leaving a fair
appraisal of the historic reality at least available - could that be
criticised as disloyal: not easily, since he can easily point to the
efforts which he's made *to improve* the perception of O. But it
nevertheless affords the opportunity for some integrity and
independence and an easy escape route for a poet from propagandism.
Hence, an Aeneid which is deliberately diffuse of interpretation and
hard to pin down, but which encourages the reader down various trails
which undermine the sunny praise of O., is not really such an unlikely
possibility.

To take the most obvious example, Aeneas and his piety. O. being
likened to the 'pius' Aeneas can obviously be taken as flattering. The
'further voicers' point to the fact that Aeneas is not universally
'pius' and indeed that V. seems to take the trouble to make this so.
Does this entail corresponding 'criticism' of O. - in some senses
'yes' but in another senses 'no' since it's founded in reality when
one applies it to the analogue Octavian, whom one would struggle to
call universally 'pius' with a straight face, or at least with any
credibility. And conveniently for the poet, it's all in the context of
an unreliable analogy, in any event.

On Mar 28, 9:26 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

>But once it's
recognised that in order to come up with something that comes across
as favourable to O., one needs a generous smattering of applied
> fiction, the question becomes rather different.<

That's when the challenge for the poet becsoms interesting. When Charles II taxed Dryden with having written a better poem in honour of Cromwell than of himself, Dryden replied: 'Sire, your Majesty knows that we poets excel in fictions.' Any loose threads to an alternative interpretation would just be a failure to do the job properly; and whatever fidelity to Augustus demanded of Vergil, it was nothing to the consequences of the change in party line for the same Dryden halfway through _The Hind and the Panther_ when James II, having despaired of an alliance with the Church of England against the Dissenters, sought instead to ally himself with the latter against the former--thus requiring him to anticipate the doubleplusgood duckspeaker who switched allies and enemies in mid-speech between Eurasia and Eastasia. That must have been like landing the plane on the Hudson River without fatalities: the ultimate test of one's training. Why *shouldn't* a poet be the faithful servant of his prince?

> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est,=

> > > constitutional system that he overthrew. I do not believe for one minut=
> e
> > > that most Romans, other than the _nobiles_, would have welcome a genuin=
> e
> > > restoration of the Republic; they remembered the horrors of freedom onl=

> y
> > > too
> > > well--the freedom of Caesar and Pompey, of Milo and Clodius, not to
> > > mention

> > > the massive corruption whose climax was achieved in the consular electi=

> ons
> > > of 54. Even the city masses, who might have been thought to have had an

> > > economic interest in a system that commodified their votes, had shown n=

> o
> > > love for it when Brutus and Cassius offered it back to them.
> >

> > > And, just as Augustus claimed to be restoring the Republic, so Mussolin=
> i
> > > claimed to be continuing the Risorgimento--a claim that at this distanc=

> e
> > > does not seem quite so far-fetched; the grandiose language of public

> > > monuments merely perpetuates that of the liberal monarchy, and the Alta=
> r
> > > of
> > > the Fatherland in Rome, which till recently it was fashionable to derid=
> e,
> > > passes amongst foreigners for archetyple Fascist architecture when it f=
> act
> > > it was completed in 1911, while Mussolini was still a left-wing journal=
> ist
> > > in Milan. (And after all, the conquest of Abyssinia was simply unfinish=

> ed
> > > business from the 1890s.)
> >

> > > As for Augustus' turning on his friends, Vedius Pollio is far more in c=
> ase
> > > than Cicero, only no-one feels the slightest sympathy for the fellow. I=
> t
> > > was
> > > Cicero who had said 'laudandus adulescens ornandus tollendus'; C. Caesa=
> r
> > > as
> > > he still was might (this is merely speculation) have been willing to le=
> t
> > > him
> > > live as too thoroughly discredited by defeat and duping to be a threat,=
> or
> > > at least not put him at the top of the enemies' list, but if Antony wan=

> > > > Once one has thrown in one's lot with any leader or any faction, one =

> has
> > > > to want him or it to win; that does not mean being blind to his or it
> > > > faults, but one knows which side one's bread is buttered.
> >
> > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > He'd come within a hair's breadth of being a victim of Octavian's
> > > > > confiscations according to such historical record as one has
> > > > > concerning V. himself. If this is true and we can ascribe to him a

> > > > > modicum of sympathy with his immediate neighbours, he had every rea=
> son
> > > > > to feel at least ambivalent about Octavian's methods and achievemen=
> ts.
> > > > > Why deny V. a modicum of sympathy: cf. Meliboeus and "mecum miserat=
> us
> > > > > agrestis" etc. etc. etc. etc. If every other dispossessed Mantuan h=
> ad
> > > > > cause to hate Octavian, why not Vergil - do we imagine he rejoiced =
> in
> > > > > his good luck to the exclusion feeling sorry for the rest - does yo=

> ur
> > > > > V. really only care about *He*? And surely it's not too fancy or
> > > > > abstract to suppose that the civil wars, themselves, provoked a
> > > > > reaction of genuine repulsion which coloured all concerned? What is
> > > > > the unfancy interpretation of the need to clip the warring bees
> > > > > leader's wings...? Is it just about bees?
> >
> > > > > If the spectrum is (i) V. engages with politics/history and whole-
> > > > > heartedly adopts the O. party line; (ii) V. engages with politics/
> > > > > history with some nuance and sophistication, and brings to bear
> > > > > alternative viewpoints and a thoroughly humane sense of regret at

> > > > > recent history, including the conduct of all the leading protagonis=

> ts;
> > > > > (iii) V. engages with politics/history and is a through-and-through

> > > > > anti-Augustan. I'd be perfectly happy to cede the line before (iii)=

> ,
> > > > > but why should (i) be more likely than (ii)? Surely the reverse?
> >

> > > > > (the thrust of my original post was directed at rebutting what seem=
> ed
> > > > > to me to be a prima facie attractive (but narrow) point - namely th=
> at
> > > > > V.'s open praise of O. comes with a degree of risk => must be sin=
> cere,
> > > > > given O.'s probably somewhat precarious hold on power even after 29=

> BC
> > > > > and my last post was mainly directed at examples of how precarious
> > > > > that might be, and trying to distinguish between "tota Italia" and

> > > > > O.'s cause, but I think we've found ourselves back at the familiar =

> and
> > > > > more general battleground...).
> >
> > > > > On Mar 27, 1:20 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > > > > > But give me the slightest historical reason (not fancy reading, o=
> r
> > > > > > abstra=
> > > > > ct
> > > > > > speculation) to show that any of this mattered two hoots to Vergi=
> l.
> > > > > > *He* =
> > > > > had
> > > > > > been well enough treated by Imp. Caesar, whatever anyone else's c=
> ase
> > > > > > migh=
> > > > > t
> > > > > > be; and the notion that he needed his wings clipped on principle =
> is
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > aristocratic/oligarchic value that Vergil had no reason to share =
> any
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > than the Roman crowds who had hounded Caesar's murderers out of t=

[falmouth]

Doesn't your example point to the fact that it *is* very much in the
political poet's interest to provide for the possibility of the regime
change, i.e. to temper praise with suggestions of insincerity - to set
up the 'further voices' in advance - to have the interpretation 'we
excel at fictions' readily available and primed in the text itself
(cf. in the particular case of the Aen. e.g. the ivory gates)?

Yes, tying up all the loose ends could be a great test of technical
and, even, poetical skill - I'd not take the point that a poet
compromises the standing of his poetry as poetry just for that reason
(as, I think, some do). But also a poet is not necessarily any the
less politic by leaving lots of loose ends, indeed, creating loose
ends (i.e. it is equally, if not more, a substantial technical and
poetical achievement to keep alive the multiple perspectives and/or an
independent voice *without* leaving oneself vulnerable to the charge
(or proof thereof) of disloyalty). Can Charles II having heard
Dryden's response ever be confident of the concept of poet as
'faithful' servant?

In the general case, I don't think there need be a presumption either
way. I.e. to the question 'why *shouldn't* a poet be the faithful
servant of his prince?', my answer would be 'no reason at all'. But I
would also answer the question "why *shouldn't* the faithful servant
of his prince create a work which is full of shifting perspectives and
an independent take not universally compatible with the party line",
again my answer would be 'no reason at all'.

In V.'s *actual* case, I see the loose-end creator rather than the
tyer-up of all loose ends and, indeed, doing this to the very limits
of what was acceptable or palatable to Octavian, but nevertheless
something which would be felt to have fully discharged his duties of
loyalty.

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

If the political poet is simply in it for the money, so to speak, yes,
provided his line is not too obviously 'And George my lawful king shall be,
Until the times do alter'; but not even Dryden behaved like that--and when
James II was overthrown (or rather ran away; like Nero, he might have won if
he'd been staunch enough), he did not try to curry favour with William III
and would doubtless have got nowhere if he had. (Nor did he reconvert from
the Catholicism he had adopted when Pop'ry came in fashion.) In fact Dryden
seems to have believed in his successive causes through the one overriding
principle, namely that anything was better than civil war: Cromwell was to
be supported *because* he was what we should call a dictator, who stood for
no nonsense (to speak anachronistically) on either left or right, and who
was a far wiser steward of public events than the hotheads of Parliament;
Charles II and James II were to be supported because their claim to the
throne was based on law, not on parliamentary faction or mob intimidation.
Granted that Augustus' claim to rule was based on no more than the same
'clubs are trumps' principle that Cromwell's was, that was quite good enough
once his (or rather Agrippa's) club had beaten down all comers; that could
explain why people (even Propertius in the end) came on board, but Vergil
was in any case personally _beneficio devinctus_, which by Roman morality
might be said to make support for his rescuer not merely gratitude but duty.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
----- Original Message -----

From: "falmouth" <adria...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>

[falmouth]

"Clubs are trumps" - I like that!

Speaking of Agrippa, I wonder what the atmosphere was actually like at
Rome in the year between Actium and the conquest of Alexandria (no
real loot yet...), with Octavian absent (keeping his distance?) and
Agrippa there because, it is implied, Maecenas wasn't able to keep
control himself. Dio who says Agrippa was sent to Rome because
Maecenas was only an 'eques' (Dio 51.3), but Agrippa's background was
many orders of magnitude more humble than that of Maecenas - if
Agrippa was accorded more 'respect', it must have been on the 'clubs
are trumps' principle? It is interesting - bizarre? - that Marcus
Crassus was elected co-consul with Octavian at around this time whom
Dio refers to as having sided with Antony (Dio 51.4) - if Octavian
really was top-dog by this time, could he not have made sure it was
someone like Agrippa or Statilius Taurus?

On Mar 30, 8:10 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

>"Clubs are trumps" - I like that!

Credit to Hobbes, in Leviathan.

Perhaps Imp. Caesar was adopting a policy of 'We're all Romans now [sc. that
Antony is dead]', but also demonstrating that the consulate was now only as
important as its holder; after all, later in the year he bestowed it on M.
Cicero, whom he neither loved nor feared--precisely because he did not fear
him. Agrippa and Taurus could wait till the master was back to keep an eye
on them.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
----- Original Message -----

From: "falmouth" <adria...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>

[falmouth]

Yes one could certainly see that as a possibility - but it seems far
riskier than having one of the old faithfuls; Marcus Crassus seems to
have been at least capable of being a major player. The other
possibility is that despite Antony's (partial) defeat at Actium,
Octavian's hold is far from secure and/or that the senate was diposed
to, and still powerful enough to, make sure that there was some proper
counterweight to Octavian.

On Mar 31, 1:33 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

<au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Clubs are trumps" - I like that!
>
> Credit to Hobbes, in Leviathan.
>
> Perhaps Imp. Caesar was adopting a policy of 'We're all Romans now [sc. that
> Antony is dead]', but also demonstrating that the consulate was now only as
> important as its holder; after all, later in the year he bestowed it on M.
> Cicero, whom he neither loved nor feared--precisely because he did not fear
> him. Agrippa and Taurus could wait till the master was back to keep an eye
> on them.
>
> Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> 67 St Bernard's Road
> Oxford
> usque  adeone
> OX2 6EJ                       scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> alter?
>

> tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work)  fax +44 (0) 1865 512237----- Original Message -----

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

But who did the senators think they were to oppose the man who held all the legions and was not afraid to use them?

adria...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> Yes one could certainly see that as a possibility - but it seems far
> riskier than having one of the old faithfuls; Marcus Crassus seems to
> have been at least capable of being a major player. The other
> possibility is that despite Antony's (partial) defeat at Actium,
> Octavian's hold is far from secure and/or that the senate was diposed
> to, and still powerful enough to, make sure that there was some proper
> counterweight to Octavian.
>
> On Mar 31, 1:33 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >"Clubs are trumps" - I like that!
> >
> > Credit to Hobbes, in Leviathan.
> >

> > Perhaps Imp. Caesar was adopting a policy of 'We're all Romans now [sc. t=
> hat
> > Antony is dead]', but also demonstrating that the consulate was now only =
> as
> > important as its holder; after all, later in the year he bestowed it on M=
> ..
> > Cicero, whom he neither loved nor feared--precisely because he did not fe=
> ar
> > him. Agrippa and Taurus could wait till the master was back to keep an ey=

> e
> > on them.
> >
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone

> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est,=
> nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > alter?
> >

> > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237-=

> ---- Original Message -----
> > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:43 PM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: More on murder theory
> >
> > "Clubs are trumps" - I like that!
> >
> > Speaking of Agrippa, I wonder what the atmosphere was actually like at
> > Rome in the year between Actium and the conquest of Alexandria (no
> > real loot yet...), with Octavian absent (keeping his distance?) and
> > Agrippa there because, it is implied, Maecenas wasn't able to keep
> > control himself. Dio who says Agrippa was sent to Rome because
> > Maecenas was only an 'eques' (Dio 51.3), but Agrippa's background was
> > many orders of magnitude more humble than that of Maecenas - if
> > Agrippa was accorded more 'respect', it must have been on the 'clubs
> > are trumps' principle? It is interesting - bizarre? - that Marcus
> > Crassus was elected co-consul with Octavian at around this time whom
> > Dio refers to as having sided with Antony (Dio 51.4) - if Octavian
> > really was top-dog by this time, could he not have made sure it was
> > someone like Agrippa or Statilius Taurus?
> >
> > On Mar 30, 8:10 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > If the political poet is simply in it for the money, so to speak, yes,
> > > provided his line is not too obviously 'And George my lawful king shall
> > > be,

> > > Until the times do alter'; but not even Dryden behaved like that--and w=
> hen
> > > James II was overthrown (or rather ran away; like Nero, he might have w=
> on
> > > if
> > > he'd been staunch enough), he did not try to curry favour with William =
> III
> > > and would doubtless have got nowhere if he had. (Nor did he reconvert f=

> rom
> > > the Catholicism he had adopted when Pop'ry came in fashion.) In fact
> > > Dryden

> > > seems to have believed in his successive causes through the one overrid=
> ing
> > > principle, namely that anything was better than civil war: Cromwell was=

> to
> > > be supported *because* he was what we should call a dictator, who stood
> > > for

> > > no nonsense (to speak anachronistically) on either left or right, and w=
> ho
> > > was a far wiser steward of public events than the hotheads of Parliamen=

> t;
> > > Charles II and James II were to be supported because their claim to the

> > > throne was based on law, not on parliamentary faction or mob intimidati=

> on.
> > > Granted that Augustus' claim to rule was based on no more than the same
> > > 'clubs are trumps' principle that Cromwell's was, that was quite good
> > > enough

> > > once his (or rather Agrippa's) club had beaten down all comers; that co=
> uld
> > > explain why people (even Propertius in the end) came on board, but Verg=
> il
> > > was in any case personally _beneficio devinctus_, which by Roman morali=

> > > > That's when the challenge for the poet becsoms interesting. When Char=
> les
> > > > II taxed Dryden with having written a better poem in honour of Cromwe=
> ll
> > > > than of himself, Dryden replied: 'Sire, your Majesty knows that we po=
> ets
> > > > excel in fictions.' Any loose threads to an alternative interpretatio=
> n
> > > > would just be a failure to do the job properly; and whatever fidelity=
> to
> > > > Augustus demanded of Vergil, it was nothing to the consequences of th=
> e
> > > > change in party line for the same Dryden halfway through _The Hind an=
> d
> > > > the
> > > > Panther_ when James II, having despaired of an alliance with the Chur=
> ch
> > > > of
> > > > England against the Dissenters, sought instead to ally himself with t=

> he
> > > > latter against the former--thus requiring him to anticipate the

> > > > doubleplusgood duckspeaker who switched allies and enemies in mid-spe=
> ech
> > > > between Eurasia and Eastasia. That must have been like landing the pl=

> ane
> > > > on the Hudson River without fatalities: the ultimate test of one's

> > > > training. Why *shouldn't* a poet be the faithful servant of his princ=
> e?
> >
> > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > Then, I suppose the question becomes how thick is the white paint? =

> Or
> > > > > does he do this to the maximum of his capabilities with uniform
> > > > > conviction?
> >

> > > > > The "further voice(s)" type analysis is maybe not as incompatible w=

> ith
> > > > > 'writing in O's interest' as it is usually taken. The first line of

> > > > > the anti-anti-augustans is something like, "well is it really at al=
> l
> > > > > historically credible that Vergil would be poking away at O.'s tend=

> er
> > > > > spots deliberately and palpably with the intention of highlighting

> > > > > them to criticise O.?" and the natural answer is "no, not really". =
> The
> > > > > hypothetical answer that the worst of the digs are suficiently subt=
> le
> > > > > to escape O.'s notice, is not really very attractive either (althou=
> gh
> > > > > this is perhaps a deliberate mischaracterisation of the pessimists =
> by
> > > > > the optimists, their point being rather that the graver the implici=
> t
> > > > > criticism, the more distance there is from the surface, thus enabli=
> ng
> > > > > the 'defence' 'is the criticism really there at all?'). But once it=
> 's
> > > > > recognised that in order to come up with something that comes acros=

> s
> > > > > as favourable to O., one needs a generous smattering of applied

> > > > > fiction, the question becomes rather different. One can imagine a V=
> ..

> > > > > liberally and overtly applying that fiction but leaving a fair

> > > > > appraisal of the historic reality at least available - could that b=
> e
> > > > > criticised as disloyal: not easily, since he can easily point to th=

> e
> > > > > efforts which he's made *to improve* the perception of O. But it
> > > > > nevertheless affords the opportunity for some integrity and
> > > > > independence and an easy escape route for a poet from propagandism.

> > > > > Hence, an Aeneid which is deliberately diffuse of interpretation an=
> d
> > > > > hard to pin down, but which encourages the reader down various trai=
> ls
> > > > > which undermine the sunny praise of O., is not really such an unlik=

> ely
> > > > > possibility.
> >
> > > > > To take the most obvious example, Aeneas and his piety. O. being

> > > > > likened to the 'pius' Aeneas can obviously be taken as flattering. =

> The
> > > > > 'further voicers' point to the fact that Aeneas is not universally

> > > > > 'pius' and indeed that V. seems to take the trouble to make this so=
> ..

> > > > > Does this entail corresponding 'criticism' of O. - in some senses
> > > > > 'yes' but in another senses 'no' since it's founded in reality when
> > > > > one applies it to the analogue Octavian, whom one would struggle to
> > > > > call universally 'pius' with a straight face, or at least with any

> > > > > credibility. And conveniently for the poet, it's all in the context=

> of
> > > > > an unreliable analogy, in any event.
> >
> > > > > On Mar 28, 9:26 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > > > > > Para. 2: Yes, it does amount to that, and I'm on the whitewash si=

> de,
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > that's what you call writing in his interest.
> >
> > > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > > > Oxford
> > > > > > usque adeone
> > > > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est,=
> > > > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > > > alter?
> >
> > > > > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865
> > > > > > 512237
> >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 8:03 PM
> > > > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: More on murder theory
> >

> > > > > > Martin, I hope you didn't read my posts as endorsing the fantasti=
> cal
> > > > > > suggestion that Vergil was murdered by Augustus... There's no rea=
> son
> > > > > > whatsoever to suggest that Vergil died otherwise than by the feve=
> r
> > > > > > which he is recorded as having contracted. I think one can be 100=
> %
> > > > > > sure that he was not 'murdered' by Augustus, (e.g. it was Augustu=

> s
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > ensured that the Aeneid was not destroyed).
> >
> > > > > > Leofrranc, it occurs to me that a different perspective might

> > > > > > accommodate to some extent some of our differences. Perhaps we wo=

> uld
> > > > > > agree that a truthful account of Octavian's exploits prior to say
> > > > > > 29BC
> > > > > > would not leave him in a flattering light (and would be entirely

> > > > > > unwelcome, to say the least). We would probably also agree that t=

> he
> > > > > > Georgics and the Aeneid *does* purport to show Octavian in a

> > > > > > favourable light. Does it amount to this - either we see V. in th=

[falmouth]

Yes, there certainly is that consideration...! The impression which
Dio gives though is that Octavian's own legions are pretty restless,
having not yet received their promised booty "The men, however, who
had helped Caesar to gain his victory and had been dismissed from the
service were irritated at having obtained no reward, and not much
later they began to mutiny." (Dio Cass. 51.3) and there is this
slightly bizarre picture of Octavian offering his own goods for
auction at 51.4. Could Oct. really afford to effect another series of
proscriptions of senators, did he have sufficient support even among
his own men? The decision to leave Rome to its own devices and to
tramp off to pick up the booty of Egypt was another politic one, it
seems to me.

On Mar 31, 2:48 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

Proscriptions agaisnt senators would have satisfied the soldiers' greed just
as in Sulla's day; if Imp. Caesar had wished to be a revolutionary leader he
could have set his army loose on the rich of Rome. But that was not his
plan.

[Martin50]

I certainly don't attribute belief in the Murder Theory to you,
Adrian. I see the question as concerning the degree of paranoia that
is appropriate in our assessment of the Augustan regime.
For all the genuine resemblances of Augustus to Mussolini - Mussolini
was trying to look as Caesarian as possible, but could never quite be
taken seriously - I still think that an account of Caesar Augustus
that dwells heavily, as Syme's does, on the unreality of 'res publica
restituta' of 27, and on the way in which the great man was able,
still able to this day! - to bamboozle liberal opinion can't but
summon up the bloodstained spectre of Stalin's Soviet Constitution of
1936. I'm sure you couldn't walk down the street in Syme's Oxford
without bumping into a liberal-minded, anti-imperialist person
(someone like me) who was Stalin-bamboozled - were there (genuine not
rhetorical question) people in that intellectual world who were
impressed by Musso? Like Stalin, Augustus had something had a
reputation as a conversationalist, aphorisms at the ready, but must
have been a terrifying person to meet: he himself noted that no one
was quite able to look him in the eye.
I can't deny that Leofranc's reasons for the non-restoration of the
Republic in its genuine form were objectively powerful and must have
helped account for the fact that pro-Republican forces died away
eventually. But I'd still be surprised - I know it's too late for the
opinion poll - if the subjective mentality had changed that much by
the time of res publica restituta. Romans of all classes had been
indoctrinated about pulchra libertas for a couple of centuries and the
civil wars, mota Metello consule three decades before Augustus'
supremacy, must have been regarded as an utterly alien aberration, not
part of what the beautiful Republic really was. The Augustan regime
was engaged in a massive transformation of ideas, sometimes presented
as a massive validation of the ideas everyone already had.
All regimes in that situation, with their mighty visions and intense
propaganda, arouse a certain level of paranoia. If they have to do
something dreadful they will and they have a good chance of concealing
it. Cicero's death was rather dreadful and I can actually summon up,
if I try for a few minutes, a bit of non-Leofranquist sympathy for the
old boy. Everyone was in a difficult position after the Ides of March
and it wasn't that easy to live by normal morality, as V eloquently
remarks. Cicero was indeed logios kai philopatris, as Plutarch makes
Augustus say of him, and a regime that can't live with people like
that faces a kind of 'disgrace' (Syme's word).
But it does seem that Augustus should rouse paranoia at a level
distinctly lower than Stalin, whose 'liberal constitution' was a
screen behind which he kept returning to to the attack on any
constitutional source of opposition, so that a majority of the mid-30s
Central Committee, his nominees and sometimes friends, was vaporised.
Augustus allowed his compliant Senate to function and it was difficult
to pin on him the accusation that he had turned on his friends. So
some sense of genuinely restored civilisation if not of genuinely
restored Republic did take hold and somehow the Augustan system became
acceptable and was made to last as the Stalinist system did not.
I'm using this semi-flattering comparison with Stalin to say why the
Murder Theory doesn't really hook me or have a clear ring of truth.
I do admit that Augustus must have lain awake on a few nights
wondering what to do with V, who was clearly so close to Gallus that
he can never have been completely secure.
- Martin Hughes


On Mar 31, 6:17 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

> ...
>
> read more »

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

There were certainly people who were impressed by Mussolini, though fewer in
the late than the early 1930s, when it sometimes seems that only boring
unimaginative people still believed in constitutionalism and anyone with
intellectual spark saw the future in either communism or fascism. (We all
know about the comsymps; Richard Griffith, _Fellow Travellers of the Right_
is a good guide to their _fascisant_ counterparts.) I think it was Low who
in 1933 produced a cartoon showing British ministers idly standing by as
three men with pneumatic drills set to work: they were Stalin, Mussolini,
and Roosevelt. We are conditioned to think that Roosevelt was the saviour of
democracy whom only Republican bigots put on a par with the dictators; back
then he could be so regarded by an admirer.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
----- Original Message -----

From: "Martin50" <rosema...@talktalk.net>
To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>

[falmouth]

Still reading and enjoying Powell, Vergil the Partisan (2008) and have
reached the chapter on the Georgics. I was interested to see what he
made of "tu regibus alas / eripe" 4.106f. While demonstrating that the
bees are to be treated as quasi-allegorical and, in particular, that
no-one should fail to see Octavian and Antony in the two king bees
4.67f; 4.89f; 4.93ff, he says "Certainly the noble insect is not used
in pure allegory for the young Caesar; Virgil in this context returns
to the formulae of didactic poetry and urges his hearer to tear the
wings off every king bee (tu regibus alas / eripe 4.106f). But the
comparison with human politics is - as we have seen - intended,
elaborate, advertised. __It does not extend to the wing-tearing, the
inappropriateness of which in a positive political image signals that
the metaphor has - for a time, at least - come to an end__, but how
far it extends in other directions remains to be seen.". This
selectiveness seems remarkably partisan to his own argument - read the
political 'allegory' only so far as fits in with the argument that
Vergil intends a positive picture and when there is something which
looks negative one _must_ be back to talking about farmers and bees,
only.

On 4 Apr, 22:47, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

The basic difficulty is this, that whatever political message Vergil might
wish to convey, he was writing a poem about beekeeping, and therefore had to
give advice on that. If apicultural opinion was that king bees' should be
unwinged, then that is what he had to say; there was no way out even for a
Caesarian, or for that matter an Antonian (about the one thing no-one has
suggested Vergil was, but that is not the point).

[falmouth]

But Powell himself emphasises how selective, indeed inventive, Vergil
has been in relation to what he does and does not say about bees
(following Mynors with approval) - i.e. the extent to which he is
bound by science/tradition is minimal. Re the bees' wings, among other
things, Vergil has given his king bees long wings, contrary to what
science had had to say.

On Apr 11, 3:21 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

Well, Columella, who was a real not a pretend farmer, takes him seriously as
an authority, and also advocates cutting off the bees' wings.

[David Wilson-Okamura]

On Apr 11, 11:21 am, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

<au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> an Antonian (about the one thing no-one has

> suggested Vergil was)

Apparently there is no heresy so absurd but that somebody has believed
it. In some ninth- and tenth-century vitae, Virgil is said to have
accompanied Antony to Egypt and served him there as poet and
counselor. Honestly, but not earnestly! See Ziolkowski and Putnam,
eds., Virgilian Tradition, pp. 251/252, 260/262, 264/266, 279/280.

[falmouth]

Neither Thomas nor Mynors find any previous reference to cutting wings
of the 'king' bee: nothing in Aristotle or Varro, which is sufficient
to demonstrate that it was not a necessary thing to mention even if V.
were trying to give a comprehensive account of beekeeping. Doubtless,
it was a practice in ancient beekeeping and Mynors explains the
rationale - i.e. to keep the swarm in one place. Similarly, doubtless
there were different types of 'king-'bees, some gleaming some shabby
and dull: the scientific reality does not necessarily impinge on the
allegorical function. The point is rather that it seems very uneven of
Powell to see and emphasise the political ramifications in numerous
aspects, but deny that this one has got anything to do with
politics.

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

Fair point; I'd rather give up on the allegory altogether.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
----- Original Message -----
From: "falmouth" <adria...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:43 PM
Subject: VIRGIL: Re: More on murder theory

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

>But I'd still be surprised - I know it's too late for the opinion poll - if
>the subjective mentality >had changed that much by the time of res publica
>restituta. Romans of all classes had been
>indoctrinated about pulchra libertas for a couple of centuries and the
>civil wars, mota >Metello consule three decades before Augustus' supremacy,
>must have been regarded as an >utterly alien aberration, not part of what
>the beautiful Republic really was.

Indeed they had been indoctrinated for centuries, just as the Russian people
had been indoctrinated for centuries about their divinely appointed absolute
Tsars; but by the early 1900s it was rapidly wearing off as the incompetence
that accompanied Nicholas II's brutality and disregard for law became more
and more obvious. Within a few days after the Ides of March it was evident
that the Roman masses had seen through the fine words of their republican
indoctrination--indeed, having been rather less than whole-hearted in their
support for Caesar's ambitions before his murder, after it they had decided
that he had been preferable to the likes of Q. Caepius Brutus (Iunianus) and
Q. Cassius Longinus after all. Nay more, in tearing to pieces the tribune C.
Helvius Cinna in mistake for the patrician Caesaricide L. Cornelius Cinna
they showed not only ignorance of constitutional law (partdonable perhaps
after the tribunate of the ex-patrician Clodius) but also contempt for the
sacrosanctity that protected their own supposed champions.

Again, it was the masses that wanted Augustus to be dictator at a time of
food-shortage; and by then dictator meant what Caesar had been, not what
(say) Fabius Cunctator had been.

This brings us back to Syme, but for a different point: his remarks on the
paucity, and reserve, of references in Augustan literature to Caesar: he was
the Divus whom Augustus avenged, and that was all. By literature he meant
Latin literature, for Nicolaus of Damasus, writing in Greek for readers who
felt no anti-monarchical sentiment, or sentimentality, shows no such
restraint; and only Latin literature, for no-one contemplating the vast
temple of Mars Ultor would be in any doubt that the better cause had not, in
its builder's view, been that which had been inherited from the fierce mind
of Cato by those who died at Philippi. That it was not to say, it was not
for the masses, who could read the message of the temple as well as anyone
but did not touch high literature, that any affectation of 'Pompeianism' was
intended; it was for the city élite, who were happy to enjoy the fruits of
peace and prosperity but preferred not to think too closely about how they
had been achieved.

In any case, Vergil did not belong to that city élite; if he did not like
the Greeks ideologically prefer rule by a universal basileus to enslavement
of one's own city by another, namely Rome, which is what the Respublica
meant if one were a citizen of somewhere else, still, he is unlikely to have
felt the same way as someone who remembered actually taking part in
constitutional public life, even if only as a voter.

As for Cicero: if he had been willing to live on after his defeat, a true
republican would say so much the worse for him; but the account of his death
suggests that he too understood. Scire mori sors prima uiris, set proxima
cogi (Lucan 9. 211).

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
----- Original Message -----

From: "Martin50" <rosema...@talktalk.net>
To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>

[falmouth]

Of course, the food shortages had been caused by the civil wars and,
in particular, land confiscations for which Octavian was primarily
seen to be responsible, and by the time that 'tota Italia' rallied to
Octavian's cause, there were no other practical options for the
indigenous population - the senate having been decimated and Antony
being overseas. Suet. Aug. 70 is revealing enough about what many
people would have felt about the food shortages and Octavian

[70] Cena quoque eius secretior in fabulis fuit, quae vulgo
dodekatheos vocabatur; in qua deorum dearumque habitu discubuisse
convivas et ipsum pro Apolline ornatum non Antoni modo epistulae
singulorum nomina amarissime enumerantis ex probrant, sed et sine
auctore notissimi versus;

'Cum primum istorum conduxit mensa choragum,
    Sexque deos vidit Mallia sexque deas,
Impia dum Phoebi Caesar mendacia ludit,
    Dum nova divorum cenat adulteria:
Omnia se a terris tunc numina declinarunt,
    Fugit et auratos Iuppiter ipse thronos."

Auxit cenae rumorem summa tunc in civitate penuria ac fames,
adclamatumque est postridie: Omne frumentum deos comedisse et Caesarem
esse plane Apollinem, sed Tortorem, quo cognomine is deus quadam in
parte urbis colebatur.


The temple of Mars is not unambiguous in its message: very prominent
would have been the display of the recovered Parthian standards - i.e.
it is a testament to vengeance in relation to Carrhae as much as
vengeance in relation to Julius Caesar's murder. The point is further
blurred by the likelihood that Julius Caesar's own planned campaign
would have been presented as a campaign of vengeance. Thus, the very
probable appearance of a statue of JC with Mars and Venus (which is
not 100% certain) and the display of JC's sword, is consistent with
vengeance *by* Julius and Augustus against the Parthians as well as
Octavian against JC's assassins. This blurring / mitigation of the
language of vengeance is similar to what one gets in the poets: in
very broad terms, the nearer to the time of JC's assassination the
closer "ultor" is associated with that, the further away, the closer
"ultor" is associated with external campaigns, although Ovid Fast.
5.569-96 on the temple itself gives equal weight to both "deo ... bis
ulto" (5.595). The idea that the temple was vowed following victory at
Phillippi may well be a complete fiction (Herbert-Brown (1994) 95ff).
Of serious note is the fact that "Mars ultor" first appears on coinage
at the time of the recovery of the Parthian standards not before.

[AL 914.2 is interesting in the context: "Italaque ultori signa
referre Iovi" as I think I may have already mentioned: why "ultori ...
Iovi" rather than "ultori ... Marti" as one would expect from a forger
familiar with Augustan poets (but NB Horace Odes 4.15) and cognisant
of the temple of Mars Ultor. Writing in 38BC, though, the concept of
*Mars* Ultor may not have existed, but it would be very natural to
speak of "ultori ... Iovi", since a triumph would finish up at the
temple of Jupiter (cf. AL 914.36 "triumphator Juppiter" - I think this
also helps me with the otherwise troubling "at pius ... Iuppiter" (AL
914.31, where maybe "pius" is being used as cognate with "pio" in the
sense of vengeance)]. On AL 914.2 it's also worth noting that "signa
referre Iovi" is exactly paralleled at Eleg. Maec. 89-90 (and only
there) - "atque aquilam mississe suam quae quaereret ecquid / posset
amaturo signa referre Ioui", difficult lines (what does it mean?)
where the manuscript reading 'signa' has been doubted.].


On Apr 16, 9:38 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

I'm pretty sure that in the 30s for the great majority who weren't in with
one side or the other (as Horace and Vergil were; possibly Propertius on the
other side) there was no love for any of the dynasts, and Imp. Caesar, as
the man on the spot in Italy, was the focus of greater discontent until
Antony handed him the propaganda victory of teaming up with a foreign queen.
But after Actium, and the clearing of the stage in Alexandria, when Imp.
Caesar was the only game in town, one might expect a great wave of support
for him, not for his personal qualities, but for being the man who could
bring order out of chaos. That, surely, is the mood captured in Georgics 1.
23-42 and Horace, Odes 1.2--in which, be it recalled, at lines 43-4 the
godlike youth is willing to be called 'Caesaris ultor'. (Think of the almost
orgasmic joy, not least from intellectuals like Gottfried Benn and Martin
Heidegger, that swept Germany in 1933 when Hitler swept away the
constitutional arrangements of the unloved and discredited Weimar Republic.)
They don't continue to write in this vein, partly because such waves of
enthusiasm wear off even when their object retains approval (most Americans
still think Obama is a good president, but only human), partly because it
hardly fitted the image of the man who was restoring the republic--i.e. the
letter of constitutional rule as against the special powers of the triumvir.
(It is possible that Imp. Caesar himself. through Maecenas, asked the poets
to cool it, in case there were still any dogmatists with daggers in the
Senate.) But nobody--not even supporters of Imp. Caesar--had thought like
that in the 30s.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
----- Original Message -----

From: "falmouth" <adria...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>

[falmouth]

Yes, I'm sure that is about right.

I had read your "Again, it was the masses that wanted Augustus to be
dictator at a time of food-shortage" as referring to pre-Actium and to
the oath of 'tota italia' (the food shortages presumably end after the
conquest of Alexandria?) - at which point I see Italy's rallying more
as a question of exigency and fear at a worse prospect even than two
dynasts slugging it out while the people starve, namely Italy and
Rome, in effect, becoming a province of Egypt.

So, so far as senatus populique vis-a-vis the dynasts is concerned:
44BC - 32BC Anthony and Octavian both resented, but
Octavian the more so
32BC? - 31BC a swing towards Octavian as the lesser of two
evils (especially because of Ant.'s Will) but hardly decisively so
(300 senators up sticks to join Ant.) of the c. 700 remaining there
will have been a large number of 'abstentions' insofar as that was at
all possible.
31BC victory at Actium, but Octavian still far
from popular and still not certainly top dog (cf. the paranoid
atmosphere of Epode 9); no loot yet and no food yet, a v. unstable
year. The picture that one later gets of clear blue skies after
*Actium* rather than *Alexandria* is a considerable distortion, I
think.
30BC victory at Alexandria, and a spasm of
relief, indeed, optimism; lots of loot and, as importantly, grain.
30BC - 27BC very unclear (deliberately so - cf. Dio's
comment to the effect that here the public record is very different
from actual facts; cf. too the beginning of Tacitus; and Livy's Books
120 onwards don't get published until after Aug.'s death?): I think
it's at least arguable that 27BC is a compromise between still real
powers, rather than Octavian graciously 'stepping down'.

Hor. Odes 1.2, yes, is in the spirit of the spasm of optimism and, I'd
happily admit in relation to Horace, active propagandism (and a clear
example of the sleight of hand - "ultor Caesaris" / "neu sinas Medos
equitare inultos" - which I referred to above). Geo. 1.21ff similarly
in an optimistic context, but far more qualified cf. "quidquid eris
(nam te nec sperant Tartara regem, nec tibi regnandi ueniat tam dira
cupido" (i.e. 'please, no more murders / proscriptions / tyranny (in
both the English and Greek sense)') and 'ignarosque uiae mecum
miseratus agrestis' (i.e. 'please, no more confiscations').




On 17 Apr, 19:20, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

No, I meant 19 BC; I refuse to call him Augustus before Plancus' motion,
insisting on Imp. Caesar (and not Octavian, which no-one called him after
the first few months).

Indeed, when he first came back to Rome the lord of all, perhaps not even he
had a firm idea how he was going to rule: he knew (and everybody else) did
*that* he was going to rule, but on what legal basis was not yet clear. But
as he thought and took soundings about it, it became evident that _dictator
perpetuus_ was too dangerous; yet another commission _rei publicae
constituendae_ when the current one expired invited the question _quousque
tandem res publica inconstituta mansura esset_, whereas restoring the old
constitution, but standing for consul every year, seemed a reasonable way of
winning applause and keeping power together. In fact it wasn't, because with
only one free consulate a year instead of two, senators found their
legitimate ambitions frustrated; hence in 23, after some turmoil, the need
for a new solution inspired in him his greatest stroke of genius (greater
even than declaring war on Cleopatra and not Antony), the _tribunicia
potestas_.

'Compromise between real powers': if by power we mean _potestas_, certainly;
if we understand _potentia_, Imp. Caesar had no rival, but there was always
the danger of the dagger, and he did not *want* to rule by perpetual terror
à la Stalin (few do; our own great dictator Cromwell, having defeated the
King, the Parliament, and his own radicals, not to mention conquered Ireland
and Scotland, was always looking for a constitutional formula and never
found one that worked). Indeed, let there be no more proscriptions and
confiscations, said Vergil, and meant it; but do you think he didn't know he
was pushing at an open door? Just provided the senators didn't drive him to
extremes; but they didn't.

[falmouth]

"Indeed, let there be no more proscriptions and
confiscations, said Vergil, and meant it; but do you think he didn't
know he
was pushing at an open door?"

Maybe V. did, but not necessarily: most would not, I think. The
rational prediction in 30/29BC would be that O. would rule by naked
despotism, with the sort of brutality and ruthlessness that he had
shown up to that point. Such 'clementia' and temperance that he
(apparently) showed is only unsurprising in retrospect. Vergil had
already been proved embarrassingly wrong in his optimistic predictions
of Ecl. 4, so he himself had more reason than most to be circumspect.
I doubt that anyone would predict in 29BC that O. would hand over the
res publica back to the arbitrium of the senate and people, even
speciously: certainly neither Geo. 1 nor Hor. Odes 1.2 seem to
contemplate this. If this was his intention, why wait 2-3 years after
Alexandria?

On the point about the paucity of reference to JC in the Augustan
poets, in major part this is probably part of a move by Augustus to
claim legitimacy in his own right, but also the topic becomes a bit
embarrassing after he has had JC's biological son executed.



On 17 Apr, 23:44, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

I meant that Vergil was, through Maecenas, rather closer to Imp. Caesar than
most people. As to Buc. 4, well, Pollio turned out not to be the best
wagon-hitch; but I find it increasingly hard to take that poem seriously:
'sponte sua sandyx pascentis uestiet agnos' reminds me of the Old Comic
fragments about life without slaves when domestic implements obeyed verbal
orders and the fish, when commanded to 'come here', replies 'But I'm not
done on the other side.'

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
----- Original Message -----

From: "falmouth" <adria...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>