In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >I too have been away for the panegyric/imperialism discussion, and offer >only a few hasty comments here. > >First, for some very un-anachronistic thoughts on the possibility that >Romans could criticize their own imperialism, see J. Zetzel, "Natural law >and Poetic Justice: A Carneadean Debate in Cicero and Virgil," CP 91.4 >(1996) 297-319; see too his chapter in the Cambridge Companion.
Romans could criticize it, or at least indulge in the luxury of putting the hostile case: witness the speeches of Caratacus and Calgacus in Tacitus, but above all Critognatos' death-before-slavery speech in Book 7 of the Gallic War, written for him by the conqueror, whom no-one has accused of guilt-feelings, C. Iulius Caesar. When captured provinces are portrayed on coins as weeping women, we should be wary of supposing that there were too many tender consciences to be troubled; but a good speech could always be enjoyed. > >Second: It's certainly true that it's easy to have anachronistic ideas >about poets' attitudes towards emperors, and those who find Vergil's >world-view dark or semi-dark do well to re-examine constantly possible >sources of anachronistic bias. But someday I would like to meet a person >who thinks that the Aeneid is undeniably extremely pro-Augustan, and can >also speak insightfully about his/her own possible sources of anachronistic >misreading. How thrilling to must be to have no biases, to live outside of >time and politics! One hears much about modern anti-imperialism, but >little, for example, of modern/late antique/medieval/Renaissance/early >modern ideas about monarchy. Servius and Donatus wrote after centuries of >increasingly autocratic one-man rule; Vergil wrote the Aeneid after about a >decade of uncertain and ambiguous one-man rule. Yes, but was that a reason for not wishing it to succeed? Once it had succeeded, and become firmly established, one could afford the luxury of wishing that things had been otherwise, but the twenties allowed less scope, unless one were an aspirant to the political power from which one was excluded. Critics of the Principate, both ancient and modern, have wished that the Republic could have continued; but what interest had Vergil, who did not belong to the displaced ruling order and who had never sought to take part in political life even when it existed, in resuscitating a constitution that had manifestly failed? However, there was a contradiction between Roman ideology and Roman reality: it was all very well for the common masses to demand in time of famine that Augustus make himself dictator, just as in myth and history they had backed seakers after _regnum_ or persons portrayed as such against the oligarchy, but among the educated it was hardly more possible to argue in the political language of Rome that _libertas_ was a bad thing than to argue in Newspeak that Big Brother was ungood; Augustus did not try, which is why he claimed to have liberated the republic from the domination of a clique and made the show of restoring constitutional forms. Some people may have wished that Antony had won, but he would have been even more blatantly monarchical; others attached by their class to the Republic, from Ti. Nero down, might and did resent the new realities, but what business had either Vergil or (student enthusiasm apart) Horace in that gale`re? That is my point: not that they thought everything Augustus did was wonderful (Horace, if he is taken at face value, must have been disappointed at the peaceful recovery of the Crassian standards), but that they had no reason to wish for his overthrow by the old gang and the renewal of civil strife that that was likely to entail. > Are Servius and Donatus >really any more likely than we to understand Vergil's attitude toward >Augustus? United *King*dom scholars live in a country ruled even longers by >monarchs, though their power has shrunk now; could this have some influence >on their views? Is it also possible that a poet could admire some aspects >of a ruler, and not others? The notion, so often repeated as though it >banished debate, most recently and most elegantly by L H-S, that "Vergil, >then, had every personal and national reason to praise Augustus, and none >to blame him," overstates our knowledge of Vergil's life and views to a >tremendous degree, and simplifies the complexity of life too much. To >return to the Roosevelts for a second, what shall we say of FDR? That he >took a country in chaos, restored confidence and financial health, reformed >the country's social policies and prevented revolution, then led the US and >the Allies to victory in WW II? Surely no one could find reason to blame >this godlike savior! Or could they? Could people object to his packing >the supreme court, redistributing wealth, initiating well-meaning social >reforms with unintended long-term consequences, serving twice as long as >any president before (to be a real parallel, give FDR Clinton's age and >health, and let him rule for 6-10 4-year terms), giving away the store at >Yalta, then picking an unknown to be his VP and a-bomb armed successor? >How about Bill Clinton? Longest economic expansion, balanced federal >budget etc etc.; surely no one could find fault with him in any way? More >to the point perhaps: could one be a supporter of Clinton, economic health >etc., and still find a wee bit to criticize about his values, character, >his compromises, choices, methods. If one had a public forum, could one >support him but also criticize certain values, hoping to influence him? >How about Reagan? Surely no one could criticize him, or both support and >criticize him? How about Julius Caesar? Weren't all his reforms >necessary, and well-done? Seems to me the claim that Vergil *could not >have* criticized Augustus would mean that the senate could not have killed >Caesar. These points are well taken; of course, even if Jim voted for this or that President, or I for this or that party (since one doesn't actually vote for a prime minister), we are free to criticize individual actions, or indeed to be disappointed. However, neither of us is in the position that Vergil was in, of having lived all his adult life in a time of disorder, civil war, and the failure of the only constitution he had been taught to believe in, then seeing order restored, precariously and not by the highest legality, by a ruler to whom there was no alternative but chaos. > >I've gone on too long. My own (tentative, ever shifting) view, drawn only >from my partial reading of the texts and my own biases, is that Vergil >basically supported Augustus (surprise! I may feel differently next week) >and wished him success, but was very pessimistic in his world views and in >his thoughts about whether Augustus would succeed, and had many misgivings >about some of his methods and values; my Vergil had pondered long the >strengths and weaknesses of the Roman people, those qualities that had led >to their many successes, and many problems. Yes, indeed. > > >Jim O'Hara James J. O'Hara >Professor of Classical Studies & Chair Classical Studies Dept. >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wesleyan University >860/685-2066 (fax: 2089) Middletown CT 06459-0146 >Home Page: http://www.wesleyan.edu/classics/faculty/jim.html > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >To leave the Mantovano mailing list at any time, do NOT hit reply. >Instead, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message >"unsubscribe mantovano" in the body (omitting the quotation marks). You >can also unsubscribe at http://virgil.org/mantovano/mantovano.htm#unsub *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Leofranc Holford-Strevens 67 St Bernard's Road usque adeone Oxford scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat alter? OX2 6EJ tel. +44 (0)1865 552808(home)/267865(work) fax +44 (0)1865 512237 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To leave the Mantovano mailing list at any time, do NOT hit reply. Instead, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message "unsubscribe mantovano" in the body (omitting the quotation marks). You can also unsubscribe at http://virgil.org/mantovano/mantovano.htm#unsub
