Ventidius' triumph
falmouth
οὐχ ἥσθη ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐφθόνησεν, ὅτι ἔδοξέ τι καθ´ ἑαυτὸν ἠνδραγαθῆσθαι·
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτὸν ἔπαυσε, καὶ ἐς οὐδὲν ἔτι οὔτ´ αὐτίκα
οὔθ´ ὕστερον αὐτῷ ἐχρήσατο, καίτοι καὶ ἱερομηνίας ἐπ´ ἀμφοτέροις τοῖς
ἔργοις καὶ ἐπινίκια δι´ αὐτὸν λαβών. Οἵ γε μὴν ἐν τῷ ἄστει Ῥωμαῖοι
ἐψηφίσαντο μὲν τῷ Ἀντωνίῳ ταῦτα πρός τε τὸ προῦχον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ
νόμου, ὅτι ἡ στρατηγία ἐκείνου ἦν, ἐψηφίσαντο δὲ καὶ τῷ Οὐεντιδίῳ, ἅτε
καὶ τὴν συμφορὰν τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ Κράσσου σφίσι γενομένην ἱκανώτατα τοῖς
Πάρθοις διὰ τοῦ Πακόρου, καὶ μάλισθ´ ὅτι ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἑκατέρου τοῦ
ἔτους ἀμφότερα συνηνέχθη, νομίζοντες ἀνταποδεδωκέναι. Καὶ συνέβη γε τῷ
Οὐεντιδίῳ μόνῳ τε τὰ νικητήρια ἑορτάσαι ὥσπερ καὶ μόνος ἐνίκησεν (ὁ
γὰρ Ἀντώνιος προαπώλετο), καὶ δόξαν ἀπό τε τούτου καὶ ἐκ τοῦ παραλόγου
ἅμα τῆς τύχης μείζω λαβεῖν· ἐν γὰρ τοῖς τοῦ Πομπηίου τοῦ Στράβωνος
ἐπινικίοις πομπεύσας ποτὲ μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων αἰχμαλώτων αὐτὸς ἐπινίκια τῶν
Πάρθων πρῶτος Ῥωμαίων ἤγαγε.
(Dio. Cass. 48.21)
This is describing the immediate aftermath of Ventidius' third success
against the Parthians, where he had enticed them over the river
Euphrates, defeating them and Pacorus had been killed. As to
Ventidius' earlier successes, Dio is careful to point out that Antony
got the formal plaudits: "Καὶ αὐτὸς [sc. Ventidius] μὲν οὐδὲν ἐπ´
αὐτοῖς παρὰ τῆς βουλῆς, ἅτε οὐκ αὐτοκράτωρ ὢν ἀλλ´ ἑτέρῳ ὑποστρατηγῶν,
εὕρετο, ὁ δὲ Ἀντώνιος καὶ ἐπαίνους καὶ ἱερομηνίας ἔλαβεν.".
Dio. 48.21 implies, does it not, that the question of whether the
defeat of Pacorus was to be attributable to Antony only was the
subject of a vote of the Senate - ἐψηφίσαντο - that is a matter of
genuine controversy. The result seems to have been a pragmatic
compromise - award both Antony *and* Ventidius (separate) triumphs (in
relation to the same victory - is there any precedent for such?). It
looks to me as if Dio. preserves the argument that will have been
proferred by / on behalf of Ventidius: "ἅτε καὶ τὴν συμφορὰν τὴν ἐπὶ
τοῦ Κράσσου σφίσι γενομένην ἱκανώτατα τοῖς Πάρθοις διὰ τοῦ Πακόρου,
καὶ μάλισθ´ ὅτι ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἑκατέρου τοῦ ἔτους ἀμφότερα
συνηνέχθη, νομίζοντες ἀνταποδεδωκέναι". Why should that make a
difference - one explanation is that this is what Julius Caesar had
already been mandated by the people and senate to do?
As background to this, there is of course Antony and Octavian
jockeying for position. Would Ventidius have squared up to Antony off
his own bat? Particularly relevant is that 38BC seems to be when
Octavian took on the appellation "Imperator Caesar".
Rather than being an anachronism, the below ([Gallus] 54-6) looks very
much like (if not identical to) the argument taken by those at the
time who were trying to ensure that *Antony did not* get the credit
for this major defeat of the Parthians.
Victrices aquilas sub duce Ventidio:
Qui nunc Crassorum manes, direptaque signa
Vindicat, augusti[s] Caesaris auspiciis.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
or even Antony; after all, that the gods were willing for Caesar at a
particular point in time to march against the Parthians was no proof that
they were willing for someone else to do so at a different point in time.
Ventidius was fighting under Antony's auspices; hence the problem of who
should be honoured how.
Nor do I understand
> Why should that make a
> difference - one explanation is that this is what Julius Caesar had
> already been mandated by the people and senate to do?
Why should what make a difference? If you mean the battle's being on the
same day and thus wiping out the ill-omen, that was extremely important to
the Roman mind (see Plutarch, Lucullus 27. 8-9, where Lucullus prepares to
defeat Mithridates on the same day, 6 October, as the rout at Arausio), but
it was not something that even Caesar could be mandated to do in advance,
since it depended as much on the enemy as on the Roman commander, however
resourceful.
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
controversy about whether Antony should receive the plaudits for this
major defeat of the Parthians. A genuine controversy despite it being
to all appearances a clear case - Ventidius was acting as Antony's
general, therefore, the his success is Antony's (as it had been
before).
"Why should that make a difference - one explanation is that this is
what Julius Caesar had already been mandated by the people and senate
to do?" - the point here is: yes, obviously a victory of considerable
importance and again made that much more signal by being on the same
date, but *how does that at all advance the case on behalf of
Ventidius* that the triumph should be his rather than Antony's (this
being said to be the justification for V. getting a triumph as well)?
Other things being equal, it would be an argument to the contrary: the
more important the victory, the less likely it would be that it should
be attributed to a subordinate.
While Dio doesn't say this in terms, the issue is most likely to have
been: either 'Antony' or 'Ventidius' (rather than 'Antony' or 'Antony
+ Ventidius'), especially given that Antony is said to have "τῆς ἀρχῆς
αὐτὸν ἔπαυσε" (how could they be honoured together without slighting
Antony after that?) and given that it would be strange to have more
than one triumphator. And it further seems to me that Dio's whole
account is only explicable on the basis of a faction being astute to
try to ensure that Antony did not get the credit - which is
historically plausible, even likely, in any event.
The real question is: how does that faction get the argument off the
ground *at all*? - referring the auspices which the now deified Julius
Caesar had taken 6 years ago to do exactly what Ventidius has
(partially) done - i.e. avenge the Crassi - seems to me to be the sort
of argument that Caesar junior might come up with. It's the
explanation of [Gallus 54-6] that I'd earlier gravitated towards in
ignorance of this passage of Dio; i.e. in ignorance of the fact that
there was *actually* any controversy as to whether Ventidius' actions
were attributable to Antony.
A further potentially relevant background point is that it was Julius
Caesar who set Ventidius off on his meteoric rise from having been
displayed in Pompeius Strabo's triumph and being described as a
muleteer, becoming a general of JC's and a senator before JC's death.
It is not inconceivable that Ventidius would have served on JC's
abortive Parthian campaign, making the convenient elision that much
easier.
Another consideration which might be significant is whether Antony (or
anyone) had in fact taken any auspices referable to this encounter -
what seems to have happened is not that Ventidius attacked the
Parthians but that he tricked the Parthians into crossing the
Euphrates and attacking him in an area which he had deceived them into
thinking would be lightly defended.
On Oct 22, 10:06 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > Vindicat, augusti[s] Caesaris auspiciis.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
personal friends in the Senate to withstand Antony's supporters, but Imp.
Caesar would naturally jump at the chance of a new ally whom he could
champion as a victim of his rival's arrogance and jealousy (not to mention a
man of just the talents as both a staff and a field officer that any army
can always do with). And yes, Ventidius could be said to have done what
Divus Iulius had intended to do. But problems remain:
1. In 38 BC, did 'Caesaris' mean 'Divi Iuli' or 'Imp. Caesaris'? If one
could still understand the former, the statement that Ventidius fought under
his auspices is highly questionable; if it had to be the latter, it is
downright false.
2. Although _augusta auspicia_ is guaranteed as legitimate Latin by Cicero,
_Pro Milone_ 43, and it may be subjective on my part to claim that even in
this context so weightily solemn a word is out of place in a pre-Augustan
elegy (I might find it easier if the couplet referred to something Ventidius
had done, rather than was in the process of doing, which is the only way
'vindicat . . . signa' can be justified), yet the cumulation of that
grandiosity with the coincidence that Gallus should happen to use a
collocation that could be corrupted into Augusti Caesaris, denoting the
wrong person by a name he did yet not possess, is rather a strain to
swallow. (Or if one wished to maintain the paradosis, interpreting it as
'the august Divus Iulius'', it would remain a stumbling-block that no-one is
said to have called him that either during his lifetime or afterwards.)
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
1. "Caesaris" would be intended as primarily Divus Iulius, I think,
but the ambiguity would be deliberate: [Gallus] making it clear which
side of the bread he is buttering.
2. My preferred reading would be augustis...auspiciis rather than
'augusti Caesaris' (~= 'Divus Iulius'): I find that easier and it is
the reading suggested by the Ennian parallels.
“*Regni* dant operam simul *auspicio augurioque*.” (Ennius 73 Skutsch)
“*Augusto augurio* postquam *inclita* condita Roma est.” (Ennius 154
Skutsch)
“Vindicat, *augustis Caesaris auspiciis*.” ([Gallus].56 emended as
suggested)
“Quid mihi cum bello? pugnent, quibus *inclita regna*” ([Gallus].81)
I cannot escape the suspicious coincidence, but if Dad is divine and
you become quasi-divine in your own lifetime, it's the sort of
coincidence that might happen.
The picture that I get of what happened in 39-38BC is that Ventidius'
instructions would have been to secure Roman territory east of the
Euphrates which had been invaded by the Parthians. He was not sent to
invade Parthia or avenge the Crassi - that would await Antony. It was
a luck / opportunism which led to the victory in which Pacorus was
killed, not a planned invasion of Parthia. The gods must surely have
been at work, given that this happened on the same day as Crassus'
defeat. JC had previously obtained favourable auspices, Ventidius was
his former general, and, I hypothesise, Antony had not yet done so.
[Gallus] 1 is also absolutely historically precise. Scaliger says
this: Scaliger: "the very first verse betrays the author's
incompetence. The author has read the beginning of Cic. to M. Caelius.
[Gallus] thinks that Seleuce has been conquered not by Cicero but by
Ventidius. Then he calls Seleuce Arsacadum. Seleuce was within the
boundaries of the Roman empire and it did not obey the Parthians."
Here the incompetence is Scaliger's not [Gallus]'. Both [Gallus] (and,
I think, Cicero) are referring to Seleucia-on-the-Tigris not Seleucia
Pieria. Seleucia was under Parthian control and it happens to be
exactly where Crassus was heading before the battle of Carrhae. There
is a colourful exchange in Plutarch's Crassus where Orodes' (referred
to as Arsaces) offers to allow Crassus to reconsider his intentions
and escape with his men's lives without provoking a war between Rome
and Parthia. Crassus says, "I'll give you an answer in Seleucia". An
ambassador replies "Hair will sooner grow in the palm of my hand,
Crassus, than you will come to Seleucia". Crassus recrosses the
Euphrates and is defeated at Carrhae. The Parthians celebrate a mock-
triumph in, precisely, Seleucia, displaying presumably the captured
standards. If one had to guess, one might suspect that the standards
remained in Seleucia. M. Caelius' letter is a humorous exaggeration:
he is saying, even if you were to be trying to achieve in Cilicia what
Crassus failed to do, it still would not be worth missing the current
affairs in Rome. Cicero has no more conquered Seleucia than he has
captured Arsaces. The sententia must have had a wider currency, I
think, for M. Caelius to use it in this way.
This is the beginning of M. Caelius' letter
tanti non fuit Arsacen capere et Seleuceam expugnare
And this is [Gallus] 1
Non fuit Arsacidum tanti expugnare Seleucen
But this is Ov.Am. 1.15.49
non fuit armillas tanti pepigisse Sabinas
Each of [Gallus] and Ovid's lines is formed “non fuit [A1] tanti
[infinitive] [A2]” where [A1] and [A2] together form the object of the
infinitive , with all elements corresponding in metrical position. Not
only that but “*ar*millas” echoes in sound “*Ar*sacidum”, as does
“*S*abinas” with “*S*eleucen”; similarly “pe*pig*isse” with
“ex*pug*nare”. Clearly, one poet had the other poet’s line at the
forefront of their mind.
Can one say anything about which poet is imitating the other? We have
already seen that every element of [Gallus] Fr. 1 is to be found in
the opening line of Caelius Rufus’ letter, including the ‘non fuit…
tanti’ construction; the references to Arsaces and Seleucia in that
order and the verb ‘expugnare’. Is it at all conceivable that the
hypothesised forger also came across Ovid’s line (entirely unrelated
in subject matter), finding there an identically structured hexameter
which happened to have the sound echoes already in exactly the right
places? Far easier, other things being equal, to suppose that Ovid is
the imitator, adapting a prominent line of a predecessor to a new
context, while preserving the sound of his model. Ovid’s
‘premerent’ (Ov. Am. 1.10.50) would then recall the situation of
[Gallus]’ poem, where Lycoris is described as ‘paene
sepulta’ ([Gallus] 4) and ‘Sic premitur geminis una puella
malis.’ ([Gallus] 6).
On 25 Oct, 12:16, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
falmouth
For "East of the Euphrates" read "West of the Euphrates" and for Ov.
Am. 1.15 read Ov. Am. 1.10.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Certainly both Caelius (not Cicero) and the poet mean the Arsacid
stronghold; but we can be far more confident that a Renaissance scholar
would have read Caelius' letter than that either Gallus or Ovid would have
done; and Ovid is fond enough of 'tanti est'; initial ar- isn't too strong a
base for argument, let alone S(abinas)/S(eleucen) or pepigisse/expugnare
(pronounced expungnare by Gallus and expuñare by Pseudo-Gallus). I don't
think we need assume a current expression: even if Cicero had achieved
something spectacular out East, it wouldn't have been worth being away from
Rome. (_Fuit_ doesn't mean Caelius is pretending to think that's what Cicero
has done, only that that was the relative valuation; in English we say
'would not have been worth it', just as we say 'could have' and 'should
have' where Latin says potuit and debuit).
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 -----
falmouth
also appreciated that Cicero's phrase was at all appropriate to
Ventidius' campaign - as Scaliger did not, but as is very much the
case. Not that that is wholly impossible, of course. But this would be
a renaissance scholar who is supposed to have dropped the clanger
'Augusti Caesaris' at the same time as being able to disambiguate his
Seleucias.
I find it impossible to look at
Non fuit Arsacidum tanti expugnare Seleucen
I have a vague feeling that [Gallus] 1
Non fuit Arsacidum tanti expugnare Seleucen
forms Arsacidum = Αρσακιδων and Seleucen = Σελευκην (did the forger
come up with these?) but because what this line should mean, I think,
is not "It would not be worth so much to sack the Arsacidans' Seleuce'
but 'It would not be worth so much to free Seleuce *from the*
Arsacids", since Seleucia was a Seleucid city captured by the
Parthians (not long before Crassus' defeat, it seems from Plutarch).
Scaliger complains about Seleuce not Seleucia, but I think the
explanation is that Seleuce is being personified to an extent -
Seleuce a female whose sympathies lie outside the city walls like
Scylla (25-30), like Tarpeia (31-6), (and like Lycoris).
Although Ovid does use 'tanti est' regularly the only other instance
with 'non fuit' at the beginning of a hexameter is Ov. Ex. P. 3.9.45.
(Coincidentally, one other hexameter of Ovid's which does begin 'non
fuit' is 'Non fuit opprobrio celebrasse Lycorida Gallo').
On 25 Oct, 19:23, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
to stick in the mind. Arsacidum was the nromal way of forming such genitives
plural in Latin poetry, though had the poet wished to imitate Ennius he
would have put Arsacidarum at the end of the line; he (or the printer)
deserves a pat on the back for writing Seleucen and not, as too many of the
best people might have done, Seleucem, but the pseudo-poetic form was easy
enough to create in any age of tolerable learning. (It is nothing to the
seventeenth-century name for Oxford I once encountered in a Sapphic stanza,
Ridicina, from the city's Welsh name Rhydychen.) You underestimate the
ingenuity of Renaissance erudition.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
it was the most famous one as well as the right one. Scaliger was capable of
going disastrously wrong, as any reader of Housman's Manilius will know..
falmouth
model for Prop. 2.14.1-2; 9
NON ita Dardanio gavisus Atrida triumpho est,
cum caderent magnae Laomedontis opes;
...
quanta ego praeterita collegi gaudia nocte:
Prop.s train of thought corresponding to but reverse in situation to
that of [Gallus] 1-3 - i.e. sacking Troy (~Seleuce) was not worth so
much as a night with Cynthia (~Lycoris); the first words 'non ita
Dardanio' echoing 'non fuit Arsacidum'; one might even suggest that
the odd 'Atrida' is somehow prompted by (not explained by) [Gallus]
Greek form accusative Seleucen. Prop's punchline is: 2.14.23-4;
haec mihi devictis potior victoria Parthis,
haec spolia, haec reges, haec mihi currus erunt.
This all makes more sense if someone had previously compared the
fruits of an actual Parthian campaign with erotic success.
Particularly, Prop. 2.14.29-30
nunc a te, mea lux, veniet mea litore navis
servato, an mediis sidat onusta vadis. 30
makes much more sense if it is playing off a model where the lover is
**actually off overseas** campaigning rather than a few doors away in
Rome.
2. Scaliger also gets upset about "Aut cadet unanimis frater ab ense
meo." ([Gallus] 80) - why should [Gallus] be worried about this if
he's fighting in Parthia? The wider answer is that 38BC is at best a
brief respite to the civil wars (and more specifically, in fact, there
were Romans under Labienus fighting on the Parthian side as well), but
the more specific answer is provided by the next line "Quid mihi cum
bello? pugnent, quibus inclita regna," - only someone who had read
Ennius (...in full...?) would realise that 'inclita regna' is a
reference to the foundation of Rome, and thus the 'unanimis frater' is/
alludes to Remus. (NB here the possibility that 'unanimis frater' is
Ennius' own phrase - 'tu potes unanimos armare in proelia fratres'
Aen. 7.335 where the 'tu' - Allecto - has been said to be modelled on
Ennius' Discordia).
3. Linking Gallus with Pollio ('Gallum Cornelium, familiarem meum' in
Pollio's letter to Cicero) and, therefore, Ventidius (Ventidius and
Pollio being often mentioned together as chief among Antony's
generals) also explains the setting of AL 916 [1]- which is given in
prose before the fragment itself and contains more information than
can be gleaned from the fragment itself: "Meretriculis ex Illyrico,
Gentia et Chloe, quae Romana castra cum matre lena sequerentur.".
Pollio had, of course, campaigned in Illyria in the years immediately
before Ventidius' Parthian campaign. It is interesting (funny...?)
that these meretrices are doing what Vergil describes Lycoris as doing
in Ecl. 10.22-3: "Galle, quid insanis?" inquit; "tua cura Lycoris /
perque niues alium perque horrida *castra secuta* est." - a joke at
Gallus' expense?
[1] It would also place at least one 'Gallus' in the environs of
Perusia - which is thought-provoking at least for the purposes of
Prop. 1.21.
On Oct 25, 11:17 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
allow himself the odd archaism, like the imperfect operibat 3. 13. 35 and
the future lenibunt 3. 21. 3; no need to invoke Seleucen.
If Horatia was rightly cut down by her own brother for mourning her dead
Curiatius, no proper Roman should regard as his fraterm let alone his
unanimis frater, any traitor fighting under Labienus' standard; such people
merited no more consideration or mercy than Vlasovites in the hands of the
Red Army after the Second World War.
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 -----