Vergil's Political Commentary in the Eclogues, Georgics and Aeneid

185 Pages·2015·3.09 MB·English

by  Leendert Weeda

Leendert Weeda
Vergil’s Political Commentary in the Eclogues, Georgics and Aeneid

Leendert Weeda
Vergil’s Political
Commentary in the
Eclogues, Georgics
and Aeneid
Managing Editor: Katarzyna Grzegorek
Associate Editor: Anna Borowska
Language Editor: Manuela Rocchi
Published by De Gruyter Open Ltd, Warsaw/Berlin
Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Munich/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license,
which means that the text may be used for non-commercial purposes, provided credit is given to
the author. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/.
Copyright © 2015 Leendert Weeda
ISBN 978-3-11-042641-0
e- ISBN 978-3-11-042642-7
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed
bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
Managing Editor: Katarzyna Grzegorek
Associate Editor: Anna Borowska
Language Editor: Manuela Rocchi
www.degruyteropen.com
Cover illustration: © Thinkstock/ The text on the front cover is from Vergil’s Georgics, book 2, 510-523.
Contents
Preface And Acknowledgements  VII
1 Introduction, Political Opinions, Propaganda  1
1.1 Introduction  1
1.2 Did Vergil Express Political Views?  5
1.2.1 Methodological Features  5
1.2.2 Political Content Of Vergil’s Poems  6
1.2.3 References  8
1.2.3.1 The Literary Frame  10
1.2.3.2 The Functional Frame  11
1.3 Propaganda  13
2 The Context  22
2.1 Poetry And Visual Media In The Late Republic And Early Empire  23
2.2 Literacy And Audience For Poetry  31
2.3 Patronage Or Amicitia?  43
2.4 Summary  52
3 The Eclogues And The Georgics  54
3.1 The Eclogues: Pastoral Poetry With Commentary On Octavian’s Land
Confiscations  54
3.1.1 Introduction To The Section About The Eclogues  54
3.1.2 The Eclogues  59
3.1.2.1 Which River Did Lycoris See In Vergil’s Tenth Eclogue?  76
3.1.3 Summary Of The Section About The Eclogues  83
3.2 The Georgics: A Didactic Poem With Political Views  85
3.2.1 Summary Of The Section About The Georgics  102
4 The Aeneid: An Epic With A Commentary On Contemporary Affairs  104
4.1 References In The Aeneid  104
4.1.1 References To Augustus  105
4.1.2 References To Cleopatra  115
4.2 Models In The Aeneid  120
4.2.1 A General Introduction  120
4.2.2 Dido: Was She A Historical Character? Early Myths  124
4.2.3 Dido In The Aeneid  127
4.2.4 Models For Dido  133
4.2.5 Cleopatra And Dido Compared  135
4.2.6 Augustus And Aeneas Compared  137
4.3 Summary  140
5 Vergil’s Political Views. Was He His Master’s Voice?  142
5.1 Vergil’s Political Views  142
5.2 Vergil: His Master’s Voice?  149
Bibliography  152
Index  164
Preface And Acknowledgements
I undertook the research for this book because I suspected that the Augustan poets,
in particular Vergil and Horace, were much more seriously engaged in political issues
than has yet been realised. The focus of this book is on Vergil, and I suppose that
he, like Horace, lived and worked in the highly political ambience of the Roman
social elite, consequent upon his position near the centre of power. In this book, I
examine whether Vergil wrote about political issues at all and what his political views
were, and whether he presented his own independent commentary on contemporary
issues. I explore the importance of his poetry as an instrument of reflection on the
great political changes in Rome of the period from the middle to the end of the first
century B.C..
Much literary criticism of classical texts is done from the perspective of a literary
frame, where the scholar investigates the literary objectives of ancient scholars: the
latter are supposed to create a literary continuity with their paragon by referring to
predecessors. Ancient authors may also have been inspired by objectives other than
purely literary ones, namely by functional objectives, when the authors’ main purpose
is to deliver a specific statement. Consequently, I introduce the notion of a functional
model, which runs next to the literary model. In this study I am looking in particular
for political statements in the narrative, and/or references to political actors, when
the author, in this case a poet, intends to give his commentary on political issues. In
this book I explore Vergil’s political views in the whole of his work. I conclude that
Vergil’s political engagement is visible in a great number of texts. For long periods
he was consistent in his opinions about several political themes. Vergil wrote poetry
which was supportive of Augustus, but at the same time he dared to be critical of him
or of his policies. Vergil was a commentator with an independent mind and not a
member of Augustus’ putative propaganda machine.
The intended audience of this book consists of classical scholars and students who
are interested in Vergil’s views on socio-political issues, and those who are interested
in intertextuality and classical reception. The book may also be useful for teachers
in the upper forms of grammar schools. Further, students of modern languages with
similar interests as those in the first category may find the book of interest, as all
Latin texts have been translated. Finally, those who maintained a liking for classical
literature and culture after their secondary education, may take pleasure in reading
the book out of general interest.
I am especially indebted to Professor Marc van der Poel, professor of Latin at
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, who has always been very supportive of my research
challenging my ideas on the one hand, and offering useful suggestions on the other1.
1  The section on the Ecl.10 (3.1.2.1), and the part of chapter 4 concerning Vergil’s portrayal of Dido
have been written originally as separate papers to be submitted to a journal of classical studies. I
VIII   Preface And Acknowledgements
The encouragement of Professor Eric Moormann, professor of Classical Archaeology
at the same university is gratefully acknowledged. I also express my gratitude to
professor Joan Booth of the University of Leiden and to Dr. Stephen Heyworth of the
University of Oxford for their critical questions at the time of completing my thesis.
The comments of Dr. Yvan Nadeau of the University of Edinburgh have been very
stimulating. I am thankful to two anonymous reviewers and the language editor of
De Gruyter Open, Manuela Rocchi, for their helpful suggestions. My thanks also go
to members of the staff of De Gruyter Open for their cooperation and support during
the writing and publishing process: Dr. Anna Borowska, Katarzyna Grzegorek,
and Dr. Agata Morka. Lisenka Fox of Radboud Universiteit assisted me greatly clearing
up some secrets of the digital age. My very special gratitude is to my wife Marja who
read my writings and showed me different ways of exploration.

Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
September 2014
wrote these together with the supervisor of my doctorate thesis, Professor Marc van der Poel. The
paper by Marc van der Poel and myself on Ecl.10 is inserted in the book as “Which river did Lycoris see
in Vergil’s tenth Eclogue?”. Special thanks are due to my daughter Claire Weeda of Radboud Univer-
siteit Nijmegen who suggested many improvements in both papers.
1 Introduction, Political Opinions, Propaganda
1.1 Introduction
Many fundamental changes took place in Rome in the second half of the first century
B.C.. After the murder of Iulius Caesar in 44 B.C. the civil war entered a new phase and
it was only after the battle of Actium in 31 B.C. that Octavian (63 B.C.-14 A.D.) could set
about establishing his authority, by which order and tranquillity became possible2.
Until that year an armed struggle had been taking place, as Octavian had directed
extensive military campaigns against his major opponent Mark Antony and others. In
27 B.C. Octavian became princeps and from that moment onwards occupied himself
with the transition that eventually transformed the Republic into a monarchy. From
26 B.C. there was relative peace in Italia and the population could begin to repair
the economy. However, the Golden Age as a period of peace and restoration did not
commence immediately after Octavian’s victory at Actium and his assumption of
power soon afterwards. The destruction of the countryside, the heavy taxes that had
been levied to finance the war and the expropriations of the land of many landowners
and small farmers alike, as part of the programme of resettlement of veterans, which
had started during the civil war, had impoverished the population.
These events caused many leading families in the Republic to feel deep
resentment towards Augustus and to resist the changes fiercely. For many others, relief
that the war and the slaughtering were over took precedence over any objections they
may have had that Augustus would most likely rule as rex. At that time kingship had a
very negative connotation. The change was considerable for the senate, its members
and for the elite in general. The senate was no longer the highest authority and while
Augustus kept in close contact with the senate and consulted it regularly, important
decisions in matters of foreign policy, military affairs or high-level appointments were
taken within a small circle of confidants. The role of the senate was much reduced, and
rejection of imperial decisions was impossible. There were three main areas of change
which met with opposition by the senate. These were the reduction in membership of
the senate, the extraordinary powers which Augustus took (or which the members of
the senate assumed that he took) and the legislation which went against the privileges
of the elite. However, the senate offered only firm opposition when they felt that
their privileged positions were being eroded. Several members of the old patrician
families had not survived the civil war or had disappeared. Those who were still alive
reluctantly accepted the emperor’s increasing power; the alternative – yet another
destructive war between rivals – was untenable, also for them. Augustus introduced
2  Although Octavian preferred to be called Gaius Iulius Caesar, I will use the name of Octavian for
him until January 27 B.C., when the senate gave him the name of Augustus.
© 2015 Leendert Weeda
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.