I don't think that I need to accuse RSyme of the modern version of Medism, since I don't think that I need to accept the 'Antony=Caesar' formula. I did begin by saying that RS regards all dictatorship as a menace. RS tells us that on the 17th March 44 Antony restored a rough and ready form of constitutional government, something which the foolishly ideological Cicero was to help subvert. Is there is a contemporary analogy, and hence a message directed by RS patriae suae? If there is, would it not be the message that, if we encountered any force in Germany prepared to restore the constitution after the (quite likely violent) death of the dictator, we should not be stopped by ideology from doing business with it? To some extent that suggestion (if indeed intended) was overtaken by events. In other ways it seems prophetic, since certain ideological objections were indeed to be overcome by the decision to rearm Germany - the first political controversy I remember. Of course all historical analogies are inexact: but I still think that there is a remarkably strong analogy between the Stalin of 36 and Augustus of 27 in RS' portrait. Standing back from particular historical analolgies and looking at RS' general philosophy, I think it is very challenging and also much more like V's view of things than RS might have cared to admit. RS says 'The tragedies of history do not arise from the conflict of conventional right and wrong. They are more august [interesting word] and more complex. Caesar and Brutus each had right on his side'. This is in a context where the links, personal and ideological, between Brutus and Cato are outlined, so there must have been right on both sides in the War of Pharsalus. I think that this view, whereby 'sua praemia laudi' and 'lacrimae rerum' become so strongly linked, is highly Virgilian. It is at least an understandable (and surely humane) view of the War of Pharsalus and of World War I (another analogy intended by RS??), even of history in general. But it is hard for RS himself to sustain in his view of the War of Actium and hard or impossible for us even to consider in respect of World War II. (What of the Cold War?) I go on too long!! But as for V on kingship: surely there is no venom in V's usage of 'rex' or (just as interestingly) 'tyrannus' (I 544, VII 266). I think V portrays Augustus as one who holds office by a means in which divine, rather than merely human, election (of which heredity is one indication) play a part. This sort of office is contrary to Libertas as defended by Cato. I don't see any Claudian-style synthesis of monarchy and Libertas. Brutus' action 'pulchra pro libertate' of VI 821 is action against monarchy and in the service of an attractive ideal. But it caused the Republic to be born and to live its life amid family strife, a theme of the next passage. - Martin Hughes.
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Leofranc Holford-Strevens wrote: > In message <Pine.GSO.3.95-960729.980916200256.8592B- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>, M W Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >(Thanks to Leofranc for correcting my remark about chronology). I have > >been thinking recently about the message to his own time which Syme > wished >to convey: the dedication 'Parentibus patriaeque' suggests that > there >certainly is a message. The Roman Republic/British Empire both > stand >menaced by dictatorships. Caesar, the dictator with overt > emergency >powers, seems rather to resemble Hitler; Stalin, the dictator > who so >sickeningly disguised his work with a liberal constitution, > seems to resemble >Augustus in Syme's portrait. It seems that the enemy > who uses deception >is more to be feared than the enemy who uses sheer > force. The message >seems to be conservative in that the Mos Maiorum in > the end looks better >than any of the revolutionary alternatives. So > the Romans should have >stood, and the British now (1939) should stand, > by their traditional >values. Above all we sould be deaf to the kind of > blandishments whereby >the Romans (think of the vain Cicero, and of what > happened to him) were >corrupted and betrayed. > ue' suggests that there > The difficulty is that Cicero thought he *was* fighting the good > conserative fight by his resolute opposition to Antony, for which he > gets scant praise from Syme. Syme indeed adopts an Antonian standpoint > because, while both Republicanism and Augustanism had their ancient and > modern propagandists, Antony's cause had gone by default; at best a > Propertius might identified with him, or Plutarch make him a great man > brought down by a woman and Shakespeare a romantic loser. But where does > Antony fit into the politics of 1939? You would have to say Antony = > Caesar = Hitler, therefore we should not accept Stalin's overtures for > an alliance against him (we did not, whereupon Stalin made a pact with > Hitler instead)-and ought not to become his ally in 1941, since he would > be the ultimate winner. Which is a position some people took, but I have > never heard it said that Syme did, and I would not accuse my worst enemy > of having done so without firm evidence. > > > There is something worrying here, in that the > >British Empire had appealed so much to Augustan, and particularly to > >Virgilian, ideas: yet these ideas are presented simply as the > >blandishments and lies whereby Augustus kept his grip on power. Much > >turns, I think, on whether we accept Syme's view that Augustus is > >portrayed (rather as Bernard Shaw portrayed Stalin, perhaps, mutatis > >mutandis) as the Restorer of the Republic. For my money, this isn't > >right. Augustus is portrayed by V as a king. > > As a king in what sense: a _rex_ with all the venom that a Roman > conservative could put into that word, or as Claudian meant it when he > wrote > > fallitur egregio quisquis sub principe credit > servitium: numquam libertas tutior exstat > quam sub rege pio > > (_De cons. Stil._ 3. 113-15). Vergil was surely of the wrong class for > the former sentiment, and the wrong date for the latter. Or do you read > into Anchises' words on Ancus, > > nunc quoque iam nimium gaudens popularibus auris > > a criticism of Augustus for associating the masses with himself against > the classes? After all, when a Roman conservative accused someone of > aspiring to _regnum_ it was for populist exploitation of grievances that > the conservative had no great desire to alleviate. Republican > _libertas_, when viewed from a certain angle, isn't all that different > from hard-faced Toryism--and has been known to appeal to hard-faced > Tories. Are you saying that at heart that was Vergil's line? > > Leofranc > > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > 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 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
