Donovan B.A., Cornell University, 2003
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Literary and Ideological Memory in the Octavia by Lauren Marie Donovan B.A., Cornell University, 2003 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classics at Brown University PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND MAY 2011 © Copyright 2011 by Lauren M. Donovan This dissertation by Lauren Marie Donovan is accepted in its present form by the Department of Classics as satisfying the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Date John Bodel, Advisor Recommended to the Graduate Council Date Shadi Bartsch, Reader Date Jeri DeBrohun, Reader Date Joseph Reed, Reader Approved by the Graduate Council Date Peter M. Weber, Dean of the Graduate School iii Curriculum Vitae Lauren Donovan was born in 1981 in Illinois, and spent her formative years in Concord, Massachusetts. She earned a B. A. summa cum laude in Classics from Cornell University in 2003, with a thesis titled “Ilia and Early Imperial Rome: The Roman Origin Legend in Text and Art” and received the Department of Classics prize in Latin upon graduation. Before beginning her graduate work at Brown University, Lauren taught Latin and Greek at the high school level for two years. During her graduate career, Lauren has presented talks on many topics including the idea of learnedness in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, the role of Prometheus in Apollonius’ Argonautica, and various aspects of her dissertation work on the Octavia. She has also been the recipient of the Andrew W. Mellon Fellowship in Humanistic Studies (2005) and the Memoria Romana Dissertation Fellowship (2010). She is currently a visiting instructor at Wesleyan University. iv Acknowledgements My dissertation has benefited from the support of countless people. First and foremost is my advisor, John Bodel, who introduced me to the Octavia in a Tacitus seminar and who has given many hours to the project’s development over the years. My work has benefited greatly from the insightful comments of my readers, Shadi Bartsch, Jeri DeBrohun, and Jay Reed. I remain grateful to the faculty and staff in the Classics Department at Brown University for their constant encouragement. The Memoria Romana Dissertation Fellowship provided me with a crucial source of intellectual and financial aid; it also brought me to Rome for a colloquium with other young scholars of memory who in turn gave me invaluable advice on my project. I am indebted to my writing group, Caroline Bishop, Liz Gloyn, Isabel Köster, and Darcy Krasne, from whose close readings, challenging comments, and support I have benefited in innumerable ways. My fellow graduate students at Brown have always provided wonderful colleagues with whom to discuss works in progress; Jennifer Thomas in particular provided me with much intellectual support, especially regarding the Octavia’s engagement with Vergil and Lucan. I also participated to great benefit in reading groups on Statius and Tacitus with fellow graduate students Bryan Brinkman, Scott DiGiulio, Timothy Haase, Karen Kelly, Leo Landrey, and Mitchell Parks. Finally, I thank my husband, Zachary Ginsberg, and my parents, Marion & Brendan Donovan, whose love and support have always been a source of strength and inspiration. I dedicate this dissertation to two extraordinary teachers. To Alex Banay for fostering my love of Latin poetry; to Judy Ginsburg, requiescat in pace, for setting me on this path and for introducing me to the complexities of Julio-Claudian memory. v For Alex Banay and Judy Ginsburg optimis magistris vi TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1: ON THE MODEL OF AUGUSTUS 20 Seneca’s Augustan Narrative 27 Nero’s Bloodless Accession and Octavian’s Bloody Past 41 CHAPTER 2: ON THE MODEL OF OCTAVIAN 57 Nero and the Triumvirate: A Lesson in Family History 58 Actium and the Augustan Legacy 76 Conclusion: Towards and Ideology of Imperial Rule 91 CHAPTER 3: OCTAVIA AND THE POETICS OF CIVIL STRIFE 96 Towards a Poetics of Civil War 98 The Octavia and Generic Markers of Civil War 105 The Seditious Nature of Nero’s Citizens 112 Civil War and Civil-War Poets 121 Nero’s Prefect and the Suppression of the Riot 135 Conclusion 144 CHAPTER 4: MODELS OF STRIFE 147 Pompey the Great and Narratives of Loss 149 Nero, Collective Guilt, and Caesar’s Assassination 170 The Aeneid Undone 183 Conclusion 199 CHAPTER 5: THE ROMAN PEOPLE’S EXEMPLARY STRIFE (PART I) 203 The Problems of the Octavia’s Chorus 205 Over Her Dead Body: Ode I 208 Roman Identity and the “Crush, Kill, Destroy” Mentality: Ode II 223 CHAPTER 6: THE ROMAN PEOPLE’S EXEMPLARY STRIFE (PART II) 234 Burning Down Troy: Ode III 234 The Danger of Favorable Factions: Ode IV 248 Exemplary Women: Ode V 262 Civil Blood Makes Civil Hands Unclean: Ode V 271 Conclusion 277 CONCLUSION 278 BIBLIOGRAPHY 282 vii INTRODUCTION The Octavia is one of the mysteries of imperial literature. We are not sure who wrote it, exactly when it was written, or for what purpose.1 We are not even sure to what genre it ultimately belongs.2 The question of its staging and stageability likewise remains hotly debated, as do the implications of potential staging on the interpretation of the drama as a whole.3 Despite these difficulties, however, the play remains an early witness to the period after the Julio-Claudians when the dynasty’s celebrated literature was being reread in light of its tragic fall and the civil strife that followed. At least one scholar, while noting its near-certain composition in the period after Nero, classifies it as the final work 1 For a history of the question of authorship, see Goldberg (2003). The dating, however, remains controversial. Some argue for a composition under Galba, while others prefer a Flavian date, either under Vespasian (as I think most likely) or Domitian. For various positions, see Boyle (2008) xiii-xi; Ferri (2003) 1-30; Wilson (2003a). As will be evident, I consider the memory of 69 CE to inform the text’s response to Julio-Claudian ideology; its precise date, however, matters little to my analysis of the play’s themes. 2 Scholars are still at odds as to whether the Octavia is best classified as a tragedy or a praetexta. Manuwald (2001, 259-339) gives a complete history of the question before advancing her own opinion that the Octavia exemplifies the “darker” imperial type of praetexta. See also Kragelund (2002) with the responses of Flower, Manuwald, and Wiseman. I will refer to the Octavia predominantly as a drama, as it is not necessary for us to decide between the two generic classifications of “tragedy” and “praetexta” in order to interpret its themes. I use the terms “tragedy” or “tragic” when explicitly discussing its reflections of tragic conventions, but I do not seek to classify it exclusively in these terms. 3 Unlike its Senecan counterparts, many have felt that the Octavia, more than any other surviving imperial drama, demands performance on the public stages of imperial Rome (e.g. Flower [2006] 2003 on the Theater of Pompey; Wiseman [2001] on the Theater of Marcellus). It has none of the “problems” that make the staging of Senecan drama so controversial and it contains many stage directions or other cues that suggest that the playwright had performance in mind (Boyle [2008] xxv-lv; Kragelund [2005] 86-96; Smith [2003]; Sutton [1983]). While my interpretation does not require us to decide whether, when, or how the play was staged, its status as a drama remains important to any analysis. Thus, following Littlewood (2004), I use the language of “audience” and spectatorship throughout the dissertation, and note where ideas of performance become important for individual points of interpretation. 1 of Julio-Claudian literature.4 That the play is wholly invested in the Julio-Claudian family, its literature, and the way the dynasty will be remembered is clear from its very beginning. In this sense it is indeed a “Julio-Claudian” text: it is haunted by Rome’s first dynasty, both literally and literarily, even as it reshapes that dynasty’s memory and reinterprets its literary monuments for a new age. In this dissertation, I explore how the Octavia confronts a brief moment in Neronian history and restages it as a powerful challenge to the Julio-Claudian dynasty’s historical claim to have put an end to civil war.5 Civil strife in the Octavia functions as a structural and thematic motif; this motif in turn strips from the Julio-Claudians their public projection of peace and security, and connects their politics inescapably with civil war and its destructive passions. The play advances this theme through its complex engagement with Julio-Claudian literature, and especially the era’s civil-war literature. Intertextuality thus becomes the play’s central mode of shaping both the literary memory of Julio-Claudian literature and the cultural or ideological memory of the Julio-Claudian family after the dynasty’s fall. Three interrelated propositions inform how I approach my subject, two methodological and one thematic.6 First, the Octavia is a self-consciously intertextual play, by which I mean that one of its fundamental modes of generating meaning derives from its echoes of literature that came before. Second, the Octavia is a play about memory, in terms of both how its characters remember the past and also how the play as 4 Sullivan (1985, 73) suggests that thematically and literarily the play belongs more to Julio-Claudian literature than to what follows. I view the play more as a transition, having much in common with the concerns of Flavian poetry (e.g. the role of civil war under a monarchy). 5 The Octavia focuses on 62 CE, Octavia’s divorce, and the riots in her favor.