# Was Antony a Roman?



## Esioul (May 22, 2004)

All right, I know I'm saying a lot about this, and it isn't properly checked so I've probably got the facts wrong. I've been obsessing about it all evening though, and it might be an interesting suject for a debate...?

Was Antony a Roman?

Pietas: Loyalty and betrayal. Double bind for poor old Ant- is he loyal to the state, or loyal to Cleo? One or the other- not both. Kills himself for Cleo/love- loyal to love. Not very Roman. But kills himself like a Roman. But makes a mess of it. Roman?

Comparisons with Aeneas: Aeneas could have stayed with Dido (love), or gone on to found Rome (state). Chose Rome and state. Virgil and Romans in general prefer this. Did Shakespeare prefer this? Purcell writing shortly after Shakespeare, so we can assume they looked on things from a similar perspective. Purcell definitely favours Dido and condemns Aeneas to being a weakling and a traitor for what he does. So Purcell likes the kind of thing Antony does, so Shakespeare does too? Likes what Antony does even if he isn’t a Roman by doing it?

Republic or Empire? Is Antony less of a Roman if he follows the wrong one? Which is the right one in Ant & Cleo? Caesar pretends to be ‘restoring the republic’, but we all know what he is really doing, whether we slept through Cicero’s speeches or not. If Antony is going against Caesar, and looking to set himself up as an ‘Eastern king’ as Caesar feels, along with a woman, for god’s sake, then he can’t be for the republic, can he. But hang on- if Caesar isn’t for the republic either, then maybe Antony is? Which is more Roman? Which would have been more preferable and Roman to the Romans at that time? There wasn’t anyone alive who couldn’t remember a time before civil war, and the civil wars all involved that phrase ‘restoring the republic’, which by that time was probably an extremely tiresome cliché anyway. So they were fed up enough of war and death (and where was the bread and the circuses anyway?) to want peace, even if it meant what was obviously a dictatorship. And I mean, come on, Augustus was a dictator. I can tell you now, Oxford classicist, that the plebs weren’t stupid anymore than plebs are stupid now, and they knew a dictator when they saw one. I mean, JC was a dictator, and look what happened to JC? Et tu Brute and that was that. There may have been people along the Cicero lines, though, who still sighed and idealised the good old days of the Republic, and saw Augustus as far less than the least of their acquaintances. So, let’s stop digressing and get back to Antony: Antony was against Caesar. So Antony was a Republican. So Antony wasn’t a modern Roman. But Caesar wasn’t what he said he was. And Antony couldn’t care less about the Republic and hated Cicero anyway. So Antony was a modern Roman. 

What does Plutarch say? This is what Shakespeare used. Where did Plutarch get his information? What did Augustus let people see? What did Augustus let people write? Cicero certainly didn’t get away with it for long, and Virgil was fortunate enough to be dying anyway. Or unfortunate enough, depending on how cynical you are. I don’t suppose Livia was the only one who knew about figs. 

Did people like Antony? Shakespeare’s Antony is lovely next to his Caesar, who does spiteful things like putting Anton’s deserted soldiers ‘in the van, so that he may seem to spend his fury on himself’. We can’t like him: he’s Roman to a fault if reason and coldness and absolute duty to the state are Roman, but he’s utterly horrible. So Shakespeare’s audience had to like Antony, despite his hypocrisy and vacillations and weakness. Did the Romans agree? After all, Antony was just creating even more civil war, and siding himself with the barbarians in the east, and Caesar was doing a pretty good job of manipulating the media back home in Rome. But at least Antony was complaining about what everyone else was too scared or tired to complain about, and Antony himself may once have been a more impressive figure. It was no secret that Augustus Caesar had let Antony do the fighting while he retired with some sickness or other, and massacres of hundreds of people are very difficult to keep secret too. Any maybe one or two people missed Cicero; the accused might have done anyway; so they weren’t happy with Augustus. Cicero was certainly not Antony’s bosom buddy (Fulvia’s ideas about what to do with what was left of Cicero attest to that, as do Phillipics), and Antony may even have proscribed Cicero. Either Cicero or Antony did it, but which one did it? Either way, Cicero died, and maybe someone other than his mummy (if she was still alive) missed him. If people thought it was Augustus, even though Augustus wanted them to think it was Antony who killed our favourite orator (who opened his big mouth far too wide with Phillipics) then they might have felt a little bit less inclined to like Augustus, and more inclined to favour the alternative, which was Antony, of course. It was probably obvious, though, that Augustus was going to win and Antony was going to lose; only a fool sides with the loser.

So we can conclude that although Antony may have been a more likeable person both to Shakespeare and to the Romans, or some of them anyway, he prioritises the wrong thing- what happened to pietas? We could reply to that though, that pietas is a loud of crap anyway. Virgil probably thought so. ‘Pius’ Aeneas gives into furor in the end and kills Turnus, whose soul resentfully goes to hell- that’s not Roman- no clementia there. But maybe we’re all Roman in hell, so I expect Aeneas, Antony, Cicero, Augustus etc are busy discussing philosophy.


----------



## polymorphikos (May 23, 2004)

I liked Caesar. He was a *******, but a ******* with a bit of commonsense. From what I've seen of the Republic, it wasn't exactly all cherries and lemonade anyway. Which puts me in mind of the last bit of the scene in the Flavian Arena in Gladiator, when Maximus says "Rome will be a republic again." Hilarious. Anyway, i don't know about the Romans and Elizabethans, but I definitely found it hard to sympaphise with any of the characters a great deal. The reason I liked Caesar was because he was the only sensible, non-reactionary person. Like is too strong a word, but atleast I felt less urges to beat him up. When Cleopatra got the asp I was incredibly relieved, and likewise when Antony died. Ludicrously off-topic, I know, but I'm finding it hard to think when my father is doing renditions of Rod Steward in the style of Mick Jagger. It's all I can do to not plug my ears with caulk.


----------



## Esioul (May 23, 2004)

Hmmmmm.

I used to hate Antony, actually,but in comparison to Aeneas, I like him more and more. I feel sorry for him: Caesar annoys me more and more.


----------



## Sirathiel (Jun 2, 2004)

Interesting train of thought, I have to say.

I'd like to add a few things though:

I started to dislike Caesar as we reached chapter 5 of De Bello Gallico.
I doubt that you could attribute Roman virtues to Aeneas, since he isn't Roman and all those Roman values developped over time in the society he founded. So much later than his exploits.
 
But don't mind the ramblings of one who fought her way through seven successful years of Latin.
As to your initial question: Antony was a Man. He fell under the charme of a Woman. He was one of those that loose all sense of self-esteem in such a situation. J/K

Sorry, I couldn't keep myself from posting, but I didn't intend for my post to degenerate like this. Please accept my apologies.


----------



## Esioul (Jun 2, 2004)

I mean Augustus Caesar, not Julius. 

And Aeneas- he wasn't really anybody until Virgil came along and decided to write the Aeneid. Aeneas was supposed to be the founder of the Roman race, so he was to appear to embody Roman values, good or bad.

Antony does seem to have a problem with self-control, but I can't say I condemn him for it, although a Roman might have.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 4, 2004)

From what little I know , he was more hedonistic than the avowed Roman ideal. Or perhaps just more open about it than his peers? Certainly, I do feel that he did not merely fall under Cleopatra's sway - I suspect he also preferred the pace and tone of life in Egypt.


----------



## scalem X (Aug 8, 2004)

As for the part indeed it was Augustus (Octavianus) who fought with antonym (Antonius) Antonius was the older one and the one with most experience so definitely the one who was the favorite in the field, he lost though to Augustus and that because of a strategically decision. He had to flee to the south and was helped by Cleopatra. They had to retreat however and had the stupid idea of letting slaves drag their ships across the land to the red sea (I think well the sea next to the Nile). A 400 meters before they reached the sea, they where captured. 

Octavianus was worshipped like a god and I don't know what happened to Antonius (probably exile), but if he killed himself I would guess it would have been out of shame.

The problem that Antonius had with the plebs (the people) is that, kind of lost when it came to debate. Octavianus had a more convincing style (if I'm not mistaking he had been though by the best)

As for Caesar (Julius), he has made the mistake of capturing too much land he could not hold.

Second if you use names please specify, Caesar means emperor and since Julius Caesar is a part of the ‘Gens Juliae”, All the girls in his family will be named Julia and all the boys Julius. Try, if you find them, to use names like Rubenius Ovidius Naso in order to clear all doubt. 

It has been a year since my last lesson of Latin; you do mean the Cicero that was sentenced to Tomis because of clearing Catilina's conspiracies??

The one that wrote 'epistulae ex pontis'??

For the part of names like Homer for Homerus and Antony for Antonius, think of the people who are not english a,d use the Latin name please


----------



## Esioul (Aug 8, 2004)

Deinde ego latinus loccus est. Marcus Tullius Cicero est proscriptinus Antonibus/Octavianibus? Cicero Catilinum superavit, sed Cicero Octavianum furus fecit, 'un puer debere nominum' vocavit. Nomine = Caesar. Caeser = auctoritas. 

Liber Latinus perdo!


----------



## scalem X (Aug 8, 2004)

Well I understand, but don't ask me to write something in latin.
To the ones to lazy to translate I can give a brief, rough translation.(esioul, please correct me if I'm wrong)
Marcus Tullius Cicero was(is literally translated) the proscriptinus(Octavianus was his pupil).
Cicero(indeed) conquered Catilina, but cicero said of octavianus:'he is a child that wants authority(not sure of this one though )' , (then another part I can't understand )

the last though can be translated in 2 ways:
1: I am a child lost to Latin (If you think the est is left out)
2: child lost to Latin

Yes it is full of errors probably, but it is first translated Latin to Dutch (lose 20 percent), then translated Dutch to English (lose 5-10 percent due to some sentences being not right in the first place). If there is more than 25% wrong it’s because I have had my lost lesson of Latin a year ago.


----------



## Esioul (Aug 8, 2004)

Oh, damn that noun liber. I meant free, but child is so similar. 

I've forgotten how to decline and conjugate everything over the summer, and I've only been learning the subject for a year. 

I meant:

Then I will (oops, missed out the -ebo thingies there) speak in Latin. Marcus Tullius Cicero was proscribed by M. Antonius or Octavianus (I used the dative for the 'by' but messed up the verb). Cicero conquered Catilinus, but he made Octavianus angry, he said 'a boy who owes everything to a name' and then I said that the name was Caesar and that meant power. 

Then I mistakenly said I had lost my Latin child. I meant to say I had lost my Latin book. So, yes, I am a lost child of Latin.


----------

