Download The Politics of Art: The View of Actium in the Aeneid

Undergraduate Review
Volume 13 | Issue 1
Article 8
2001
The Politics of Art: The View of Actium in the
Aeneid
Kyle Painter '01
Illinois Wesleyan University
Recommended Citation
Painter '01, Kyle (2001) "The Politics of Art: The View of Actium in the Aeneid," Undergraduate Review: Vol. 13: Iss. 1,
Article 8.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol13/iss1/8
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Ames Library, the Andrew W. Mellon Center for Curricular and Faculty
Development, the Office of the Provost and the Office of the President. It has been accepted for inclusion in Digital Commons @ IWU by
the faculty at Illinois Wesleyan University. For more information, please contact [email protected].
©Copyright is owned by the author of this document.
Painter '01: The Politics of Art: The View of Actium in the Aeneid
late Review
:reatAmerican Artist Series: Winslow Homer. New
rahiller, 1959.
~
York: Macmillan, 1944.
The Politics of Art: The View of Actium in
the Aeneid
By Kyle Painter
;1I!f Stream. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
William. The Slave Ship. Museum of Fine Arts,
When Augustus took control of Rome, he used several means to
gain power. One of these was, of course, military force. However,
after Antony and Cleopatra were defeated, Augustus had to fInd ways to
keep his power without keeping a large military at his constant disposal.
The major way that he was able to do this was through controlling the
public's view of himself through various means of propaganda. As
Paul Zanker has shown, Augustus used very effectively the power of
symbolic images, located on coins, buildings, and statues to manipulate
popular opinion. Using such tools, he was able to control the underlying
ideology of the public, making them believe that he was their savior
from the enemies of the republic.
Another art form which historians see as playing a factor in
Augustus' attempt at ideological control is poetry. There were three
famous poets of the Augustan era, Horace, Propertius, and Virgil, and
all three praised their emperor. However, it is a question of historical
debate as to how much autonomy these poets had. Many historians
claim that these poets were virtually pawns of Augustus, writing praises
to him just like his artists made sculptures to exalt him. However, liter­
ary critics have asserted that there is a certain amount of freedom from
Augustus within the work of these poets. This study will focus only on
Virgil and his epic, the Aeneid. I will fIrst discuss more general issues
involving the Aeneid and its political and poetical signifIcance, and then
proceed to analyze as a test case the portrayal of the Battle of Actium
found in Book 8 and compare it to the pro-Augustan propagandistic
history of Cassius Dio to see how close are these two views of this very
politically charged topic.
Virgil uses several means of commenting on Augustus in the
Aeneid, but one of the most spectacular of them is found on a shield
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 2001
1
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 13, Iss. 1 [2001], Art. 8
48 The Undergraduate Review
fashioned by Vulcan for Aeneas. The shield contains a series of
vignettes of Roman history, including such events as the rape of the
Sabine women, the she-wolf with twins Romulus and Remus, and the
punishment of Catiline. In the center of the shield is the Battle of
Actium, in which gods are seen helping to determine the outcome of
this decisive battle.
Many of the earlier modern interpretations of Virgil's Aeneid
focused on its political ramifications. In 1776, G. E. Lessing stated that
this shield is "an interpolation, intended solely to flatter the pride of the
Romans" (qtd. in GurvaI210). He went on to say that the shield used
by Virgil was only a copy of a comparable shield made by Homer; the
implication is that the copy, since it has so little originality, must exist for
the purpose of promoting Augustus and the ideal of Roman-ness.
Lessing tends to see Virgil as a tool for Augustan propaganda.
Although recent critics have been less abrupt in their assertions of the
Aeneids political interpretations, they still see a vital link between Virgil's
epic and Augustus.
Some critics have wanted to see Aeneas as a prototype for
Augustus. Virgil, writing in the time when Augustus was creating a new
form of government, identifies Augustus with the mythical founder of
the city of Rome. Mary K. Thornton notes that" [i]t is generally agreed
that one of Vergil's major tasks in the Aeneid is to glorify Augustus but
alas the poet has a problem: he must portray Aeneas, the surrogate for
Augustus, as a Roman hero" (566). Her argument is that Virgil had to
create a mythical Aeneas that suited the historical Augustus. The "prob­
lem" that she mentions is that Augustus was a good administrator but
had a reputation as a terrible fighter. Her contention is that Virgil
manipulated the character of Aeneas in order to fit the real-life
Augustus. For example, in book 7 Virgil "makes [an] insignificant inci­
dent the cause of a war," implying that war is an insignificant act, there­
fore Augustus need not worry about not being known as a successful
general (567). By belittling any of the weaknesses that Augustus may be
accused of within the fictional Aeneas, Virgil is promoting Augustus.
One possible weakness to this kind of argument is that there
cannot be a one-to-one correspondence between the Trojan and the
Emperor. Adam Parry illustrates this problem well when he demon­
strates how Aeneas could be seen as a representation for Antony. In
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol13/iss1/8
2
book 4, Aeneas is romantically connected to (
The love affair that Dido and Aeneas have is II
Cleopatra and Antony (parry 65-66). If this \\
ize Augustus in the person of Aeneas, then Vi
included a view of Aeneas as Augustus's wors1
not accept the argument of such a narrow cor
However, some critics have emphasize
tions of the Aeneid by looking at the scenes th
history, including the Battle of Actium, which
critics recognize that some amount of politics
not surprising. R.J. Tarrant claims that "it wOl
had he not [spoken on politics], given his liter:
stances" (170). Such a talented poet with clos.
could not really avoid writing on political then
nection, Virgil has often been interpreted in lil
Augustus. Tarrant says that "the more positiVI
easier it becomes to construe the Aeneid as a c
whereas if Augustus was in fact nothing more
tyrant ... , Virgil's praise of his regime becomf
(185). Basically, Tarrant is saying that assessm
nection between Virgil and Augustus has beer:
denied on the basis of that particular critic's v
himself realizes that Virgil was not the writer
of propaganda," would "have hoped for" in 0
gandistic campaigns, because Virgil does not 1:
praises (186). In saying this, Tarrant is anticip
more artistic view of Virgil's poetry.
Other critics have tried to diminish tho
focusing on the literary elements of the Aenei.
his book Ai1ium and Augustus, maintains that \
amount of distance from Augustus. He state~
Augustus attached to Actium in his political ic
it cannot be found in the poems of Horace, \
at least it should not be rashly interpreted to 1
the poetic compositions" (136). If these poet
which they all do at times, it is not because A·
employed them to write in his honor. Gurval
--
Painter '01: The Politics of Art: The View of Actium in the Aeneid
Painter 49
ate Review
Aeneas. The shield contains a series of
>ry, including such events as the rape of the
rolf with twins Romulus and Remus, and the
In the center of the shield is the Battle of
:e seen helping to determine the outcome of
ier modern interpretations of Virgil's Aeneid
Ltnifications. In 1776, G. E. Lessing stated that
ation, intended solely to flatter the pride of the
210). He went on to say that the shield used
, of a comparable shield made by Homer; the
py, since it has so little originality, must exist for
19 Augustus and the ideal of Roman-ness.
;il as a tool for Augustan propaganda.
ave been less abrupt in their assertions of the
tations, they still see a vital link between Virgil's
: wanted to see Aeneas as a prototype for
:in the time when Augustus was creating a new
~ntifies Augustus with the mythical founder of
K. Thornton notes that "[i]t is generally agreed
,r tasks in the Aeneid is to glorify Augustus but
~m: he must portray Aeneas, the surrogate for
~ro" (566). Her argument is that Virgil had to
that suited the historical Augustus. The "prob­
s that Augustus was a good administrator but
ible fighter. Her contention is that Virgil
:r of Aeneas in order to fit the real-life
in book 7 Virgil "makes [an] insignificant inciI implying that war is an insignificant act, there­
>vorry about not being known as a successful
19 any of the weaknesses that Augustus may be
:tional Aeneas, Virgil is promoting Augustus.
Urness to this kind of argument is that there
:orrespondence between the Trojan and the
~ustrates this problem well when he demoni be seen as a representation for Antony. In
book 4, Aeneas is romantically connected to Queen Dido of Carthage.
The love affair that Dido and Aeneas have is akin to that between
Cleopatra and Antony (parry 65-66). If this was a work meant to ideal­
ize Augustus in the person of Aeneas, then Virgil would not have
included a view of Aeneas as Augustus's worst enemy. We simply can­
not accept the argument of such a narrow correspondence.
However, some critics have emphasized the political ramifica­
tions of the Aeneid by looking at the scenes that actually recount recent
history, including the Battle of Actium, which I will discuss later. These
critics recognize that some amount of politics within Virgil's writing is
not surprising. R.J. Tarrant claims that "it would have been astonishing
had he not [spoken on politics], given his literary stature and circum­
stances" (170). Such a talented poet with close connections to Augustus
could not really avoid writing on political themes. Because of this con­
nection, Virgil has often been interpreted in light of the view of
Augustus. Tarrant says that "the more positively Augustus is judged, the
easier it becomes to construe the Aeneid as a celebration of his rule,
whereas if Augustus was in fact nothing more than an especially crafty
tyrant .. " Virgil's praise of his regime becomes an embarrassment"
(185). Basically, Tarrant is saying that assessment of the political con­
nection between Virgil and Augustus has been emphasized or almost
denied on the basis of that particular critic's view of Augustus. Tarrant
himself realizes that Virgil was not the writer that Augustus, the "master
of propaganda," would "have hoped for" in order to further his propa­
gandistic campaigns, because Virgil does not blindly extol Augustus's
praises (186). In saying this, Tarrant is anticipating the arguments for a
more artistic view of Virgil's poetry.
Other critics have tried to diminish the political overtones by
focusing on the literary elements of the Aeneid. Robert Alan Gurval, in
his book Actium and Augustus, maintains that Virgil kept a certain
amount of distance from Augustus. He states, "Whatever significance
Augustus attached to Actium in his political ideology and public image,
it cannot be found in the poems of Horace, Vergil, and Propertius. Or
at least it should not be rashly interpreted to have been the impetus for
the poetic compositions" (136). If these poets offer praise to Augustus,
which they all do at times, it is not because Augustus has specifically
employed them to write in his honor. Gurval realizes the political impli­
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 2001
3
--
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 13, Iss. 1 [2001], Art. 8
SO The Undergraduate Review
cations of Virgil's text, but he also tries to separate it from Augustus's
control. He sees the Aeneid as "serv[ing] more to mold a new
"Augustan" conception and ideology of the Actian victory than to
endorse or transmit any prior propaganda of the battle" (213). Gurval
wants us not to bias our interpretation of the Aeneid with preconceived
ideas on the nature of Virgil's relationship with Augustus. Another crit­
ic, Katherine Toll, also wants to fmd an alternate path of interpretation
as she shows how the Aeneid was one of the forces that helped to
"make Roman-ness" (34-56).
The question of whether we interpret based more on political or
literary criteria is still up for debate. I will now consider that question
by examining the view of Actium on the Shield of Aeneas and compare
it to pro-Augustus propaganda written by Cassius Dio. After Virgil
recounts several of the important events in Roman history that appear
on the shield, he proceeds to describe the middle of the shield, which
contains the scene of Actium. First he describes Augustus and his
army:
Augustus led the Italians into battle
with Senate and people, with gods both small and great.
He stood in the sternsheets. Flame poured from his brows
exultant; above him dawned his father's star.
Elsewhere, Agrippa, blessed by gods and winds,
swooped down with his fleet. (8.678-683)
It is important to note who is with Augustus as he is entering battle. He
is accompanied not only by the Italians and the Senate, but also by all
manner of gods. Later we fmd that Minerva, Neptune, Venus, Mars,
and especially Apollo, all of them major players in the Roman pantheon,
are all backing Augustus, fighting for his eventual victory. The people
with him are of Italian lineage, and his top general Agrippa accompa­
nies him. In addition, his adopted father, Julius Caesar, seems to have
taken on divine attributes, being placed in the heavens as a star. All of
this emphasizes the utter Roman-ness of Augustus.
In contrast to this, we have the view of the opposition:
There Antony, like some savage, gaudy sheik,
hero of Araby and the Sea of Pearls,
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol13/iss1/8
4
led Egypt, the lords of the East, and
behind him (God forfend!) his Gypsy
Antony is given his due for previous victories
in one line, he takes back in the next by castiJ
"Egypt, the lords of the East, and Bactria," a
Sabaeans. It was typical to associate Antony
was no exception. The main god we see helr
the dog Anubis. Not only is Antony associat
but the god pictured is a mere dog (accompa
tastic shapes" (8.698)) compared to the Rom:
Then there is Cleopatra, the "Gypsy'
tioned by name, but she does seem to have n
In fact, Antony is basically a figurehead acco:
the actions performed by Egyptian force are
her gong for battle stations" (8.696), but that
"prayed for a wind" and escaped south towat
initial view of Antony at the head of the Eg~
alluded to. As Gurval puts it, "[W]hile the eI
Antony's name and relegates the role of the:
ion ... , he also painstakingly avoids any overt
pation and civil war" (263). This has the eff(
Cleopatra as its leader, seem like the real ene:
for Augustus, who can now receive a triumpl
Egypt, not a partially Roman force led by At:
is somewhat Egyptianized, he remains a Ron:
as the primary leader of the Eastern forces.
Cleopatra's eventual end is described
Amid the carnage Vulcan had carved
with impending death, riding the win.
And there, to the south, the Nile, gri.
She seems pitiful, being pale and grief-strick<;
her imminent demise. Gurval notes that the
she had used in battle are gone as she escapE
also notes that "there is also not the final tm.
lavishes on the defeated enemy at the end of
Painter '01: The Politics of Art: The View of Actium in the Aeneid
late Review
IUt he also tries to separate it from Augustus's
neid as "serv[ing] more to mold a new
md ideology of the Actian victory than to
prior propaganda of the battle" (213). Gurval
interpretation of the Aeneid with preconceived
'irgil's relationship with Augustus. Another crit­
rants to ftnd an alternate path of interpretation
eneid was one of the forces that helped to
-56).
whether we interpret based more on political or
for debate. I will now consider that question
f Actium on the Shield of Aeneas and compare
19anda written by Cassius Dio. After Virgil
mportant events in Roman history that appear
ds to describe the middle of the shield, which
ctium. First he describes Augustus and his
: Italians into battle
people, with gods both small and great.
sternsheets. Flame poured from his brows
lim dawned his father's star.
)pa, blessed by gods and winds,
¥ith his fleet. (8.678-683)
,ho is with Augustus as he is entering battle. He
. by the Italians and the Senate, but also by all
we ftnd that Minerva, Neptune, Venus, Mars,
1of them major players in the Roman pantheon,
,ftghting for his eventual victory. The people
ineage, and his top general Agrippa accompa­
is adopted father, Julius Caesar, seems to have
:s, being placed in the heavens as a star. All of
r Roman-ness of Augustus.
is, we have the view of the opposition:
ke some savage, gaudy sheik,
nd the Sea of Pearls,
Painter
51
led Egypt, the lords of the East, and Bactria;
behind him (God forfend!) his Gypsy Queen. (8.685-88)
Antony is given his due for previous victories, but what Virgil gives him
in one line, he takes back in the next by casting him as the leader of
"Egypt, the lords of the East, and Bactria," and later, as Virgil adds, the
Sabaeans. It was typical to associate Antony with the East, and Virgil
was no exception. The main god we see helping the Egyptian side is
the dog Anubis. Not only is Antony associated with Egypt and its gods,
but the god pictured is a mere dog (accompanied by "[w]eird gods, fan­
tastic shapes" (8.698)) compared to the Roman gods in human form.
Then there is Cleopatra, the "Gypsy Queen." She is never men­
tioned by name, but she does seem to have more power than Antony.
In fact, Antony is basically a ftgurehead according to this portrait, as all
the actions performed by Egyptian force are ordered by her. She "rang
her gong for battle stations" (8.696), but that proving unfruitful she
"prayed for a wind" and escaped south toward Egypt (8.707). After the
initial view of Antony at the head of the Egyptian force, he is not even
alluded to. As Gurval puts it, "[W]hile the epic poet does not omit
Antony's name and relegates the role of the Egyptian queen to compan­
ion ... , he also painstakingly avoids any overt mention of Roman partici­
pation and civil war" (263). This has the effect of making Egypt, with
Cleopatra as its leader, seem like the real enemy. This is very fortunate
for Augustus, who can now receive a triumph for having defeated
Egypt, not a partially Roman force led by Antony. Even though Antony
is somewhat Egyptianized, he remains a Roman, and so cannot be seen
as the primary leader of the Eastern forces.
Cleopatra's eventual end is described like this:
Amid the carnage Vulcan had carved her pale
with impending death, riding the wind and wave.
And there, to the south, the Nile, grief-stricken ... (8.709-711)
She seems pitiful, being pale and grief-stricken from the knowledge of
her imminent demise. Gurval notes that the former royal sails which
she had used in battle are gone as she escapes from Actium (270). He
also notes that "there is also not the ftnal touch of dignity that Horace
lavishes on the defeated enemy at the end of his Cleopatra Ode" (271).
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 2001
5
-Undergraduate Review, Vol. 13, Iss. 1 [2001], Art. 8
52 The Undergraduate Review
Instead, we witness a rather pathetic end to a once noble life, an end
which we barely get time to hear about as the narrator quickly trans­
ports us to Augustus' triumph in Rome.
Overall, the shield is obviously slanted toward Augustus, but not
more than might be expected. Augustus does get a triumph for winning
the battle, but not because of any decisive move made by him. It is
actually the gods that get most of the credit for the victory. In fact,
Augustus thanks the gods by giving them lavish gifts when he gets back
to Rome. Cleopatra in the end is not as vilified as we might expect, only
shown to be weak and ineffectual in battle. It seems that the primary
effect of this scene is not to lift up Augustus and to tear down Antony
and Cleopatra, but rather, Virgil is showing us what it means to be a
Roman. Augustus may figure into that explanation, but he is not really
the cause or embodiment of the Roman ideal. It seems that Virgil has
created a text that does praise Augustus, but which does not lift him up
nearly as much as it could have.
In contrast to Virgil's description of Augustus, Cleopatra, and
Actium is that of Cassius Dio. Cassius Dio was a third century official
who, after serving under several emperors, decided to write a history of
Rome. The government in his day was extremely corrupt in his view, so
in his history he looks back to Rome's former glories. Augustus is seen
as a savior of Rome, a restorer of the monarchy, even though the
emperors refused the title of "king" (Millar 74). In fact, at one point,
Dio says that the Romans were "robbed of their democratic form of
government," but we know that he was actually in favor of the princi­
pate, so this robbing action of Augustus was seen as a good thing (Dio,
Cary 5.435). Since he saw Augustus this way, Dio was prone to allow
his own opinions of the first emperor to color his history. Many of the
distortions that Augustus promulgated through his own propaganda
scheme were preserved in Dio. Consequently, in Dio we have a very
good source of pro-Augustus propaganda that we can compare to
Virgil's Aeneid.
Dio, in a manner similar to Virgil, goes out of his way to associ­
ate Antony with Egypt. While Antony is fighting in the East, he gains
monetary support from Cleopatra. However, she affects him much
more than that, as we see that as early as 36 B.C., Antony "became more
than ever a slave to the passion and the witchery of Cleopatra" (Dio,
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol13/iss1/8
6
Cary 5.409). It was a fruitful affair that prodl
Dio's emphasis on the children is one of the :
Antony with Egypt instead of Rome. This id
when Augustus declares war on Egypt. Augu
include Antony in the declaration, but Dio sa:
were directed formally against Cleopatra, but
(Dio, Scott-Kilvert 38). Dio clearly wants to •
Augustus' republic, as part of the enemy Egy
One problem that Dio has that Virgil
writing a history, which is supposed to contai
most of which could probably have been che
raries. Therefore, he cannot rid Antony of a]
are some senators and consuls that defect to
Aeneid, the only senators were with Augustus:
addition to this, Cleopatra had as a bodyguarl
diers who "had her name inscribed upon thei
K.ilvert 38). What we end up seeing is not su
Antony's Roman origin, such as we see in the
what happens when Roman-ness is spoiled b­
case Cleopatra. She subjugated and "enslavel
where he would walk behind while she was b
(Dio, Scott-I(ilvert 38). Dio claims that "she
so it should come as no surprise that the spe
Actium declares that Antony is no longer COl
citizen, but rather an Egyptian" (Dio, Scott-I<
Antony, as an Egyptian, is not only the enem
Augustus' nghtful enemy as a traitor of Rome
trast to the very cursory treatment given to }
a way, lifting up Augustus by tearing down A
Throughout the scene of the Battle c
lifting up of Augustus. He is the one makin!
sions, although as Meyer Reinhold notes, "AI
centre of all events, though the victory was 1
115). Dio does mention Agrippa, but the vi­
efforts of Augustus. Again, this is unlike Vi:
accomplishing the victory.
One place where Virgil and Dio seer:
Painter '01: The Politics of Art: The View of Actium in the Aeneid
Painter 53
late Review
her pathetic end to a once noble life, an end
~ to hear about as the narrator quickly trans­
umph in Rome.
ld is obviously slanted toward Augustus, but not
ected. Augustus does get a triumph for winning
se of any decisive move made by him. It is
t most of the credit for the victory. In fact,
Is by giving them lavish gifts when he gets back
he end is not as vilified as we might expect, only
1effectual in battle. It seems that the primary
)t to lift up Augustus and to tear down Antony
r, Virgil is showing us what it means to be a
figure into that explanation, but he is not really
It of the Roman ideal. It seems that Virgil has
praise Augustus, but which does not lift him up
ld have.
irgil's description of Augustus, Cleopatra, and
lS Dio. Cassius Dio was a third century official
: several emperors, decided to write a history of
t in his day was extremely corrupt in his vie\Y, so
ack to Rome's former glories. Augustus is seen
estorer of the monarchy, even though the
Ie of "king" (Millar 74). In fact, at one point,
1S were "robbed of their democratic form of
lOW that he was actually in favor of the princi­
ion of Augustus was seen as a good thing (Dio,
lW Augustus this way, Dio was prone to allow
: fl!st emperor to color his history. Many of the
IS promulgated through his own propaganda
in Dio. Consequently, in Dio we have a very
~stus propaganda that we can compare to
r similar to Virgil, goes out of his way to associ­
While Antony is fighting in the East, he gains
Cleopatra. However, she affects him much
e that as early as 36 B.C., Antony "became more
passion and the witchery of Cleopatra" (Dio,
Cary 5.409). It was a fruitful affair that produced at least three children.
Dio's emphasis on the children is one of the signs that he is identifying
Antony with Egypt instead of Rome. This identification is intensified
when Augustus declares war on Egypt. Augustus is careful not to
include Antony in the declaration, but Dio says, "These proceedings
were directed formally against Cleopatra, but in reality against Antony"
(Dio, Scott-K.ilvert 38). Dio clearly wants to see Antony, the enemy of
Augustus' republic, as part of the enemy Egyptians.
One problem that Dio has that Virgil does not is that Dio is
writing a history, which is supposed to contain some amount of "facts,"
most of which could probably have been checked by his contempo­
raries. Therefore, he cannot rid Antony of all his Roman ties, as there
are some senators and consuls that defect to his side (whereas in the
Aeneid, the only senators were with Augustus) (Dio, Scott-K.ilvert 37). In
addition to this, Cleopatra had as a bodyguard a group of Roman sol­
diers who "had her name inscribed upon their shields" (Dio, Scott­
K.ilvert 38). What we end up seeing is not simply a lack of details on
Antony's Roman origin, such as we see in the Aeneid, but a portrait of
what happens when Roman-ness is spoiled by an outside force, in this
case Cleopatra. She subjugated and "enslaved" him, even to the point
where he would walk behind while she was being carried on a litter
(Dio, Scott-Kilvert 38). Dio claims that "she deprived him of his wits,"
so it should come as no surprise that the speech by Augustus before
Actium declares that Antony is no longer considered "to be a Roman
citizen, but rather an Egyptian" (Dio, Scott-K.ilvert 39, 54). Thus,
Antony, as an Egyptian, is not only the enemy of Augustus, but
Augustus' rightful enemy as a traitor of Rome. This is defInitely a con­
trast to the very cursory treatment given to Antony by Virgil. Dio is, in
a way, lifting up Augustus by tearing down Antony.
Throughout the scene of the Battle of Actium, we again see this
lifting up of Augustus. He is the one making all the important deci­
sions, although as Meyer Reinhold notes, "Augustus was placed at the
centre of all events, though the victory was largely Agrippa's"(Reinhold
115). Dio does mention Agrippa, but the victory was won by the
efforts of Augustus. Again, this is unlike Virgil, who pictures gods
accomplishing the victory.
One place where Virgil and Dio seem similar is in their views of
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 2001
7
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 13, Iss. 1 [2001], Art. 8
54 The Undergraduate Review
Cleopatra's retreat. Dio pictures a Cleopatra who is worn out by the
day's fighting and is unsure of what to do. He says that "both as a
woman and as an Egyptian she found herself stretched to breaking­
point by the agony of the suspense, and the constant and unnerving
effort of picturing victory or defeat" (Dio, Scott-Kilvert 59). Because
of her gender and her heritage, this situation is really too much for her
to handle. She ends up fleeing toward Egypt, reminding us of the
image of the pathetic Cleopatra that Virgil envisions sailing away from
Actium.
Overall, Dio's history is filled with propaganda. The details of
the story have been arranged in such a way as to exalt Augustus and to
vilify Antony and Cleopatra. He accentuates Antony's association with
Egypt so that he can paint him as a defiled Roman. He also exaggerates
Augustus' achievements to make him look like a more successful general
than he really was.
Virgil, on the other hand, minimizes both Antony and Augustus.
He does focus on the difference between Roman and Egyptian/Eastern,
but this contrast serves to lift up the ideal of Roman-ness that Virgil
was describing throughout the Aeneid. Since he lacks the kind of pro­
Augustus praise that Dio employs, we can see that Virgil was not under
Augustus' thumb as some have suggested; however, his epic was not
completely free of propagandistic elements. Virgil did retain autonomy
as a poet, but his poetry was deflIlitely seeking to convince people of
the character of an ideal Roman. Of course, Augustus was in the posi­
tion to cast himself as this ideal Roman, but this association does not
seem to be Virgil's ultimate intention. While we should not ignore the
political ties which Virgil may have had, we would do well while inter­
preting the Aeneid to pay attention to what Aeneas himself noticed:
Such were the scenes on Vulcan's shield: Aeneas
saw only art, not history ... (8.729-30)
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol13/iss1/8
Gurval, Robert Alan. Actium and Augustus: the p
war. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 199~
Millar, Fergus. A 5turfy
of Cassius Dio. Clarend,
Parry, Adam. "The Two Voices in Virgil's Aer:
Interpretations: Virgil's Aeneid. Ed. Harc
Chelsea House Publishers, 1987. 57-74
Reinhold, Meyer. From Republic to PrinClpate: A.
Cassius Dio's Roman History Books 49-52­
Scholars Press, 1988.
Tarrant, R.J. "Poetry and power: Virgil's poetl
context." In The Cambridge Companion.
Martindale. Cambridge: U of Cambri.
Thornton, M. K. "Damage-Control in the Ae:
Military Reputation of Augustus." LA
Toll, Katharine. "Making Roman-ness and th
Antiquiry 16.1 (1997): 34-56.
Vergil. The Aeneid. Trans. Frank 0. Copley. I:
1965.
Zanker, Paul. The Power of Images in the Age of
Shapiro. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan ­
WORKS CITED:
Cassius Dio. The Roman History: The Reign of Augustus. Trans. Ian Scott­
Kilvert. New York: Penguin, 1987.
Cassius Dio Cocceianus. Dio's Roman History. 5
Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1914.
8
Painter '01: The Politics of Art: The View of Actium in the Aeneid
Painter 55
ate Review
)ictures a Cleopatra who is worn out by the
re of what to do. He says that "both as a
an she found herself stretched to breakinge suspense, and the constant and unnerving
y or defeat" (Dio, Scott-KiLvert 59). Because
:ritage, this situation is really too much for her
leeing toward Egypt, reminding us of the
~opatra that Virgil envisions sailing away from
tory is filled with propaganda. The details of
1ged in such a way as to exalt Augustus and to
tra. He accentuates Antony's association with
1t him as a defiled Roman. He also exaggerates
to make him look like a more successful general
.et hand, minimizes both Antony and Augustus.
Jerence between Roman and Egyptian/Eastern,
o lift up the ideal of Roman-ness that Virgil
LIt the Aeneid. Since he lacks the kind of proemploys, we can see that Virgil was not under
e have suggested; however, his epic was not
Igandistic elements. Virgil did retain autonomy
was definitely seeking to convince people of
Roman. Of course, Augustus was in the posi­
~s ideal Roman, but this association does not
lte intention. While we should not ignore the
may have had, we would do well while inter­
attention to what Aeneas himself noticed:
e the scenes on Vulcan's shield: Aeneas
art, not history ... (8.729-30)
History: The Reign oj Augustus. Trans. Ian Scott­
rk: Penguin, 1987.
Cassius Dio Cocceianus. Dio's Roman History. 9 vol. Trans. Earnest Cary.
Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1914.
Gurval, Robert Alan. Actium and Augustus: the politics and emotions oj civil
war. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1995.
Millar, Fergus. A Sturfy oj Cassius Dio. Clarendon: Oxford, 1964.
Parry, Adam. "The Two Voices in Virgil's Aeneid." In Modern Critical
Interpretations: Virgil's Aeneid. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York:
Chelsea House Publishers, 1987. 57-74.
Reinhold, Meyer. From Republic to Pn'ncipate: An Historical Commentary on
Cassius Dio's Roman History Books 49-52 (36-29 B.C.). Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1988.
Tarrant, R.J. "Poetry and power: Virgil's poetry in contemporary
context." In The Cambridge Companion to Virgzl. Ed. Charles
Martindale. Cambridge: U of Cambridge P, 1997.
Thornton, M. K. "Damage-Control in the Aeneid: or Rescuing the
Military Reputation of Augustus." L:ztomus 51.3 (1992): 566-570.
Toll, Katharine. "Making Roman-ness and the Aeneid." Classical
Antiquiry 16.1 (1997): 34-56.
VergiL. The Aeneid. Trans. Frank 0. Copley. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,
1965.
Zanker, Paul. The Power oj Images in the Age oj Augustus. Trans. Alan
Shapiro. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1988.
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 2001
9