In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Philip Thibodeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >There can be no doubt that there is a great difference between the social >and economic conditions for patronage in antiquity and for more modern >critics; and the a priori notion that the poets' rightful place is in >opposition to the establishment does seem to be characteristically modern. >On the other hand, the projection of this idea onto ancient Rome, and onto >the Augustan Age in particular, is not as anachronistic as some make it out >to be. Consider that, > >1) while most poets, then as now, were little more than producers of cacata >carta, the fact is that a great or even a popular poet was regarded as a >marvellous, somewhat uncanny figure - 'divine', as an ancient might say. A >major poet was seen as doctus, prudens, sapiens; informed, canny, and wise. >For this reason, poets on the level of Vergil and Horace possessed a >certain power. Readers knew that they were great men, even if they could >not always say why (cf. Propertius' nescio quid maius Iliade). The safest >course was simply to praise them, to kick them upstairs into a snug >canonicity. > >2) Part of their power resided in their unpredictability. Major poets are >the constant object of requests for panegyric; most of these commissions >they refuse, and they have the luxury of choosing the ones they want. When >they accept a commission, the inevitable result is never *just* a piece of >panegyric. Callimachus wrote in praise of his patrons on a number of >occasions; no doubt Ptolemy and Berenice expected their requests to be >fulfilled with something to make the heart throb. Instead what they get >are things like a chattering lock of hair, lamenting its apotheosis. The >praise is there, sure; but the poem itself is surprising and comes ever so >close to being - crazy.
But why can't the patrons ever be sophisticated enough to appreciate it, and to see that it did them more good than the uninspired panegyric? Consider Choerilus of Iasos, the notoriously bad poet who accompanied Alexander on his conquests and is set up in shameful contrast to the great painter Apelles and great sculptor Lysippus who alone were permitted to represent the great man visually. (Not that our sources ever say whom Alexander ought to have commssioned to write about him instead.) > Vergil's and Horace's panegyrics can have the same >over-the-top character (cf. the prologue to the first Georgic and H's >Cleopatra Ode.) Is the Cleopatra ode over the top? Not nearly as much as Ode 1.2; but it is significant that these poems, like the Georgic prologue, seem to be from early in the reign. Perhaps Augustus dropped a hint that he would rather not be assassinated by people thinking he wanted to be a Hellenistic god-king, thank you very much. > Are they being serious? Comic? Laudatory? Cynical? You >can't pin them down. That is not an accident of scholarship; it is an >essential characteristic of their poems. > >3) Precisely because it is so unpredictable, good poetry always has the >*potential* to serve as an expression of dissent. 'Dissent', of course, is >a broad term - it has to cover phenomena as diverse as Ovid's cheerfully >immoral poems (and the carmen that won him exile), Hasn't Ovid recently been represented as an ultra-loyalist whose loyalty was not appreciated? > Catullus' tiff with >Caesar over some lines of poetry, Lucan's hyper-republican epic, with its >ambiguous praise of Nero, Not half so subversive in that as it is of its own Republicanism: Pompey was by no means the past-it feebleton whom Lucan depicts, nor did Cicero urge battle at Pharsalus because he longed to hear the sound of his own voice (he wasn't even there). Personally I see Lucan as Nero's crony (cf. L'incoronazione di Poppea) till Nero became jealous of the better poet; when Lucan cited Nero's 'sub terra tonuisse putes' in the public lavatories that may not have been dissent, but the (possibly ill-judged) self-confident of the favourite. > and Curiatius Maternus, the star of Tacitus' >Dialogus, who 'broke the power of Vatinius' in Nero's time by 'reading >tragedies'. These (and the rest of Philip's message) make good points; but don't court poets usually spend most of their capacity for dislike or dissent on each other, only turning against the ruler when he fails to take them at their own valuation? 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)/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
