March 07 Essay Entry

[Primus Pilus]

Winning entry by the Augusta.

Augusta___Laying_New_Foundations.doc

Augusta___Laying_New_Foundations.pdf

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Outstanding essay Augusta. Well researched, written, and presented!

 

I never before knew that Virgil wanted the Aenid destroyed when he died. I think this is quite telling that Augutus considered it a key piece of his campaign of propagada by refusing to allow it to be destroyed. Along with his Res Gestae, the Aenid has obviously been one of the most enduring testaments to Augustus' success.

 

I wonder, is there any indication why Virgil wanted it destroyed? I admit although it is on my list of things to become familiar, I only have a faint acquaintance with Virgil and this monolithic work. Was he unhappy about an unfinished work being his legacy? I know there is some discussion that he was unhappy about some portions of book 8 between Venus and Vulcan and there are possibly some incomplete lines.

 

But, I also wonder, perhaps he had doubts about this great work being viewed as a tool of propaganda?

[M. Porcius Cato]

I also thought this was an outstanding essay.

 

One question that it raises concerns why and how Augustus was successful in changing the political culture in Rome. During the republic, nothing seemed to delight the voters more than military conquest. Magistrates who wished to campaign on other strengths (rhetorical, legal, administrative, etc) had enormous difficulty: in fact, arms never really made way for togas, as Cicero prematurely proclaimed. In contrast, Augustus burnished his reputation, not by expanding the borders of the empire, but by bringing the blessings of law, order, and peace.

 

I think it would be interesting to compare Augustus' attempts to shift the standard for evaluating Roman statesmen to previous attempts during the republic.

[Klingan]

Excellent essay, I wish i could make my own for uni half as well! The thought of Numa at the altar of peace is interesting but highly unlikely I'd say. Augustus would hardly want himself connected even to the image of a king. Good thought on The Aeneid and how it was used for propaganda.

 

I find it funny thou how Augustus wanted to show an image to the world of traditional values when he changed Rome possible more then anyone before him.

 

Great work!

 

 

I wonder, is there any indication why Virgil wanted it destroyed? I admit although it is on my list of things to become familiar, I only have a faint acquaintance with Virgil and this monolithic work. Was he unhappy about an unfinished work being his legacy? I know there is some discussion that he was unhappy about some portions of book 8 between Venus and Vulcan and there are possibly some incomplete lines.

 

But, I also wonder, perhaps he had doubts about this great work being viewed as a tool of propaganda?

 

I reckon that he wanted it destroyed because it was unfinished as you thought. About how he felt considering the propaganda value I have no idea.

 

I also thought this was an outstanding essay.

 

One question that it raises concerns why and how Augustus was successful in changing the political culture in Rome. During the republic, nothing seemed to delight the voters more than military conquest. Magistrates who wished to campaign on other strengths (rhetorical, legal, administrative, etc) had enormous difficulty: in fact, arms never really made way for togas, as Cicero prematurely proclaimed. In contrast, Augustus burnished his reputation, not by expanding the borders of the empire, but by bringing the blessings of law, order, and peace.

 

I think it would be interesting to compare Augustus' attempts to shift the standard for evaluating Roman statesmen to previous attempts during the republic.

 

I guess that after 50 years of more or less constant threat of civil war or civil war, people wanted stability.

[M. Porcius Cato]

One question that it raises concerns why and how Augustus was successful in changing the political culture in Rome. During the republic, nothing seemed to delight the voters more than military conquest. Magistrates who wished to campaign on other strengths (rhetorical, legal, administrative, etc) had enormous difficulty: in fact, arms never really made way for togas, as Cicero prematurely proclaimed. In contrast, Augustus burnished his reputation, not by expanding the borders of the empire, but by bringing the blessings of law, order, and peace.I think it would be interesting to compare Augustus' attempts to shift the standard for evaluating Roman statesmen to previous attempts during the republic.

I guess that after 50 years of more or less constant threat of civil war or civil war, people wanted stability.

But people were also exhausted after the civil wars of Marius/Sulla and the Social Wars, which is when Cicero made his premature declaration. From Cicero's standpoint, why should he have been less optimistic about changing the political culture than Augustus?

[Publius Nonius Severus]

I reckon that he wanted it destroyed because it was unfinished as you thought. About how he felt considering the propaganda value I have no idea.

 

Not to sidetrack the issue, the more I think about, the harder I find it to accept that he would rather have ten long and hard years of his life be reduced to ashes simply because it was unfinished. I know he was a noted perfectionist, but this seems inconceivable to me. Hence why I brought up possible political motivations for wanting it destroyed.

 

Destroy an epic because it is incomplete = hard to fathom. Destroy a piece of propaganda that compromises your values as an artist (no matter how gracefully and ingeniouslty crafted) = bordering on believable.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Destroy an epic because it is incomplete = hard to fathom. Destroy a piece of propaganda that compromises your values as an artist (no matter how gracefully and ingeniouslty crafted) = bordering on believable.

 

That's a damned good point!

[The Augusta]

Destroy an epic because it is incomplete = hard to fathom. Destroy a piece of propaganda that compromises your values as an artist (no matter how gracefully and ingeniouslty crafted) = bordering on believable.

 

That's a damned good point!

 

It certainly is a good point - and I see a case for both arguments here. Whilst a poet of Virgil's standing may well have considered an unfinished epic worthless (one needs to empathise with the poetic mind here), he was also in no way one of Augustus' 'yes-men'. Nor was Horace, for that matter. There are examples in the works of both poets where one can see a distinct lack of enthusiasm, or actual 'distaste' for 'towing the party line'. Whilst we cannot examine it in depth here, it may be a worthwhile topic for another thread.

[Klingan]

From the social war until the conflict between Sulla and Marius ended and Sulla's withdrawal from dictatorial power 91-78 bc was a long time of civil wars but yet "only" 13 years. Until the battle of Actium 31 Rome witnessed closely by spartacus slave revolt (73 -71 bc I believe), Catalina's plot 63, the uneasy first triumvirate, the next civil war between Pompey and Caesar and what followed in their tracks. The period between 91 and 31 bc was constantly very unstable and when you're considering that the life expectancy was 27 years (average and median, Jo-Ann Shelton, "As the Romans Did second edition") that makes up for two generations of constant social unrest.

 

I don't know when Cicero said that arms never really made way for togas, but unless it was very late in his life there were still a great deal of conflicts left until Octavianus had grabbed all power. Maybe people could still keep the memory of peace in their mind, and Octavianus saw his chance and took it decads later? Just a mater of "better" timing.

 

PNS; That's just what I've been told myself by my professor. It may be any reason.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Whilst a poet of Virgil's standing may well have considered an unfinished epic worthless (one needs to empathise with the poetic mind here), he was also in no way one of Augustus' 'yes-men'. Nor was Horace, for that matter. There are examples in the works of both poets where one can see a distinct lack of enthusiasm, or actual 'distaste' for 'towing the party line'. Whilst we cannot examine it in depth here, it may be a worthwhile topic for another thread.

 

Sounds interesting. Propertius comes to mind as well.

[The Augusta]

Sounds interesting. Propertius comes to mind as well.

 

Indeed - and if we bring in Ovid, we have political ramifications too. (I feel a thread coming on...)

[Rameses the Great]

Congragulations to The Augusta! I just could not get the darn thing to load.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Rameses the Great

[M. Porcius Cato]

Sounds interesting. Propertius comes to mind as well.

Indeed - and if we bring in Ovid, we have political ramifications too. (I feel a thread coming on...)

Is this confined to poetry, by the way? It would be interesting if it turned out that historians were more taken in by Augustus' propaganda than the propagandists themselves. So much for the idea that Virgil was the Leni Riefenstahl of his age.

[The Augusta]

But people were also exhausted after the civil wars of Marius/Sulla and the Social Wars, which is when Cicero made his premature declaration. From Cicero's standpoint, why should he have been less optimistic about changing the political culture than Augustus?

 

I honestly believe that it could be the simple contrast of a competitive Republic versus a Principate in which advancement was only gained by the goodwill of the Princeps. As distasteful as that may seem to us now, we have to remember that the wars of Marius/Sulla and Octavian/Antony had been seen as factional rivalries, and once there was one man in control, promising an end to all the strife, the exhausted populace fell for it. (What is really interesting is why?) Whatever Republican facade Augustus may have hid behind, he was very firmly in control of the state. It is what I have always believed, Cato - but I would certainly welcome other views and arguments. It was anathema to Cicero to conceive of one supreme ruler - it went against everything he believed in. Augustus had been brought up with Julius as a 'role model', so the idea was not so alien to him. But you are right - a discussion on how the populace saw the merits of peace and a halt to imperial expansion would be fascinating.

 

 

Sounds interesting. Propertius comes to mind as well.

Indeed - and if we bring in Ovid, we have political ramifications too. (I feel a thread coming on...)

Is this confined to poetry, by the way? It would be interesting if it turned out that historians were more taken in by Augustus' propaganda than the propagandists themselves. So much for the idea that Virgil was the Leni Riefenstahl of his age.

 

Not at all - I firmly believe that the historians also used literary devices, and were just as much at the mercy of propaganda as others. (It's something I want to comment on in WotWotius' essay thread)

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Not at all - I firmly believe that the historians also used literary devices, and were just as much at the mercy of propaganda as others. (It's something I want to comment on in WotWotius' essay thread)

 

I completely agree Augusta. There is a fantastic book that I just found the other day that explores the use of anecdotes by both historians and poets as a literary device to convey a variety of issues, to include propaganda.

 

If you have access to Questia than you can find it here: Questia.com, otherwise look for The Roman Use of Anecdotes in Cicero, Livy & the Satirists by Elizabeth Hazelton Haight, Longmans, Green and Co., 1940