Rosemary Grayston
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:00:23 -0700
I quite agree that the legal story, as far as the Young Caesar was concerned, of the Actium campaign was of a war of Rome against Egypt, where certain traitors appeared, most nefariously, on the Egyptian side. But this story is not quite what we get in V's account of the Shield, which I suppose puts a case to Republican sympathisers that they have a better deal from the Augustan than they could ever have obtained from the Antonian system.
Antony does not appear as a love-slave tied to Cleo's ample apron but as a vigorous and menacing leader, using his position as a Roman victor in the East to carry the Eastern peoples (some reluctantly, perhaps) in an attempt to secure domination for himself in Rome. She follows him, not he her. No one thinks it nefarious for a wife to follow her husband and within the scheme of the Aeneid it is not forbidden for women to appear on a battlefield for a cause she believes in: Cleo and Antony would seem to have a Camilla-Turnus, rather than a Dido-Aeneas, relationship.
I would think that the nefarious act in this passage, for the sales pitch to the Republican diehards, seems to be the introduction not just of a form of monarchy but of a form that brings Eastern political and religious forces into the Roman political equation: a sudden and unmanageable transition. It is better for everyone, including the easterners, whose rivers will now run more gently under Augustan tutelage, to establish a regime that will from now on respect Western-style religious restraints. The unpleasantness of the Triumviral period is over, and was Antony's fault anyway.
Yet the reference to Egypt in the Georgics as the home a fortunate race that Eastern influences of all kinds on a united Empire would inevitably arrive and we should make the best of them.
There seems to be some stress in V's thought here. Perhaps only in my thought. - Martin Hughes ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leofranc Holford-Strevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <mantovano@virgil.org> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:54 PM Subject: *** SPAM *** Re: VIRGIL: Nefarious conjugals with fortunate race
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rosemary Grayston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writesWhat is meant here by 'racism'? The scientific theories that were all the rage (not least amongst progressive eugenicists) until the Second World War and then dropped like a hot potato afterwards? Or simply the belief that certain other peoples, especially those against whom one is fighting, are inherently decadent or vicious, which is normal in all wars? (Think of the stuff the British told each other about the Germans in both World Wars; anyone who imagines the Second was fought only against the Nazis needs to grow up fast.) Retrospective moral judgements are for prigs, the kind of people who used to rebuke Martial for obscenity and then when the fashion changed for obsequiousness; or else for those who. What was the sentiment to which V appeals in the Shield passage of A8 when he accompanies mention of 'the Egyptian wife' of Antony with an expostulation about the nefarious nature of the partnership? The racism and fear of Caesarian 'tota Italia' propaganda, as advertised by Syme?Compound for sins that they've a mind to By damning those they're not inclin'd to.Even if one happens to believe that some moral principle or other is timeless, one can no more blame those who lived before its revelation for not abiding by it than the most zealous Christian blames those who lived before the Incarnation for not being Christians.Augustus had declared war on Cleopatra, not on Antony, in order that the conflict should be with a foreign enemy with whom (as could be foreseen) Antony would treasonably ally himself, rather than a civil war against someone whose right to power was no worse than his own. Once the war was on, of course the enemy would be vilified: for the spirit in which Cleopatra could be viewed see (in a poet who had seen the dark side of Octavian at Perugia, and who sometimes plays at a dandyish sympathy for his opponent) Propertius 3. 11, especially v. 41 'ausa Ioui nostro latrantem opponere Anubim', even though in the previous verse he has acknowledged that Cleopatra was of Macedonian blood, and therefore not a native Egyptian (unlike Apion if you believe Josephus' defence of the Jews against his *racial* attack). But in Vergil the point of Aegyptia coniunx is surely less to tarnish her than to damn Antony, who (nefas!) had taken a foreign wife and thrown in his lot with her; had committed the crime, in fact, from which Aeneas had drawn back.Leofranc Holford-Strevens -- *_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_* 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)/353865(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