510 Schauer, M. 2007. Aeneas Dux in Vergils Aeneis. Eine

510 De novis libris iudicia / S.J. Harrison / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 510-513

Schauer, M. 2007. Aeneas dux in Vergils Aeneis. Eine literarische Fiktion in augus- teischer Zeit (Zetemata, 128). München, C.H. Beck. 304 p. Pr. €64.00 (pb).

As its title suggests, this book focuses on the characterisation of Aeneas as leader of the Trojans in Vergil’s Aeneid. It falls into three main parts: a historical contex- tualising of the Aeneid (15-59), an overview of the community of Trojans in the poem (60-121), and, most substantially, an analysis of Aeneas as their leader (125-253). Th e fi rst part argues that it was still uncertain in the 20’s BC that the generation of civil wars was fi nally over, and that the Augustan political settlement was much less secure than we tend to see it in historical hindsight. Th e Aeneid ’s support for the new ruler of Rome was thus a positive contribution to politics, and provided an optimism about a secure future for Rome not fully justifi ed by contemporary circumstances. Likewise, Schauer sees the ideology of the principate as not really formed until after Vergil’s death, and argues that the teleology of the Aeneid pre- senting Augustus as the ‘end of history’ was daring and visionary rather than refl ecting a consensus of the 20’s. Th is is a salutary scepticism, but many might think that the evidence of (e.g.) Vergil’s own Georgics and Horace’s Odes, not to mention early 20’s building projects such as the Mausoleum Augusti, supports the traditional view that Actium and the removal of the fi nal rival Antony was the crucial watershed for the Augustan political project. Schauer is especially keen to argue that simple Augustan panegyric is diffi cult in the 20’s BC owing to the lingering shadows of civil war; but it needs to be emphasised that Actium was carefully presented as a foreign not a civil confl ict in both political and poetic discourse, and that civil war in the Aeneid is deliberately presented as the province of the culpable Caesar and Pompey, as opposed to the god-like overseas conqueror Augustus (contrast 6.791-805 with 6.826-35), though of course Vergil’s war in Italy itself has some aspects of the Roman civil war of the 40’s BC (cf. especially 7.317 socer atque gener). Above all, Schauer is sceptical on the connection between Aeneas and Augustus, arguing that we need to assess Aeneas primarily as an epic commander in the Homeric tradition (an important aspect, indeed) and that the Aeneid largely adopts a strategy of distance from detailed political issues. Th is seems hard to accept completely: genealogy, analogy, aetiology and anachronism constantly link Aeneas to Augustus in the poem (e.g. the stress on the gens Iulia at 1.288 and 7.789-90, the Augustan-style co-extension of private and state religion in the penates of Aeneas as the national gods of the Trojans, the visit to Actium at 3.278-93, the Anchises/Caesar analogy in Book 5 or the appearance of Augustus at Actium on the shield which Aeneas wields at 10.261-2, stans celsa in puppi at 261, like Augustus on that very shield at 8.680).

Th e central section on the Trojans in the Aeneid is an excellent account of how this community in exile functions. Schauer points out that the supremacy of the Trojan royal house is bolstered by divine epiphanies, but sees the Trojan social structure as otherwise relatively egalitarian. He is also good on the issue of succession : as he points out, neither Ascanius/Iulus nor Aeneas Silvius (Aeneas’ posthu- mous son by Lavinia) in fact inherits Lavinium, and Aeneas Silvius succeeds to Alba Longa, not the sons of its founder Ascanius/Iulus. Th ese problems of inherit- ance surely spoke to a contemporary Rome where Pompey’s sons had all perished, where the future Augustus was a postuma proles (cf. 6.763) of Caesar through his testamentary adoption, and where imperial succession was a central issue in the 20’s with the loss of Marcellus (as spectacularly recorded at 6.863-86). Aeneas’ command of genealogical links and their diplomatic advantages (a Homeric trope) is well noted; the discussion of divination and destiny nicely stresses how suspense is maintained about short-term tactics alongside long-term strategic certainties, but here and elsewhere some mention might have been made of Stoic infl uence on the poem. In particular, the tension that Schauer rightly sees between the will of individual deities and the plan of destiny (118) might be profi tably treated as a confrontation between Homeric polytheism and Stoic providentialism. Th e account of Aeneas himself plausibly argues against those who see an organic development of his character in the poem, rightly pointing out that this is an anachronistic concept for antiquity and that fi tting behaviour in individual epi- sodes is more important than overall psychological continuity, especially in a narrative which begins in medias res and actually contains relatively little of Aeneas’ life. Schauer rightly points to the fact that in Aeneas’ own narrative in Books 2-3 his individual role and thoughts are initially downplayed, but they do emerge more fully after the vision of Hector, which deserves more emphasis as a key moment where Trojan leadership is handed on. In general, Schauer is right that Aeneas’ leadership simply emerges from the sack of Troy despite the hero’s initially unpromising character, but even more weight might be given to the fact that he is the senior surviving member of the most important Trojan family (a good Roman argument). Schauer is also good on the alternating cycle of crisis and rationality which characterises Aeneas’ leadership (the hero’s opening appearance in the storm is an excellent example), on the relative roles of Aeneas and Anchises in Book 3 (the older man looks after religious aff airs, the younger exercises practical leadership), and on the way in which Aeneas grows in knowledge of his mission and understanding of destiny (though of course it is important that his knowledge is always partial). It is well emphasised that only Aeneas and Anchises amongst the Trojans have the cachet of a Homeric past; otherwise, the Trojan elite is selected by the mon- arch. Here Achates the loyal no. 2 might have been mentioned, possibly anticipating