adhered to by Antony,I 11 so was Propertius similarly condemned.1l2 Griffin (1985:43) adds that above all, Antony was the slave of a woman, but that where this was, for some, a shameful state, it was, for an elegist, a great boast. Furthermore, in the early tradition of Cleopatra's death, as recorded by her physician, Olympus, Antony is shown dying 'a romantic Propertian death, after living, in many respects, the life which Propertius wished to live.,113 Griffin (1985:47) concludes that 'after all, if Antony had won the Battle of Actium, Propertius would have been an Antonian poet.'
Nevertheless, Actium was not won by Antony, and Propertius -like all the Augustan poets - follows largely the Augustan interpretation of Actium, as a war between Octavian and Rome, on the one hand, and Cleopatra and the East, on the other.
And when the golden helmet had exposed her brow Conquered the conqueror with her beauty.
Omphale advanced to such renown for beauty (The Lydian girl who dipped in Gyges' lake)
That he who had raised his pillars in a world at peace Spun her soft wool with homy hand.
Semiramis built the Persian city of Babylon, Rearing a massive work with walls of brick
On which two chariots could be sent to pass each other Without their sides being grazed by touching axles, And she led Euphrates through the citadel she founded And bade the Bactrians bow down to her rule.
For why should I drag heroes and why Gods into court?
Jove disgraces himself and his own house.
What of her who lately brought scandal on our arms, A woman even laid by her own slaves?
As price of her foul marriage she demanded that Rome's walls And Senators should pass into her power.
Delinquent Alexandria, land most attached to guile, And Memphis, to our cost so often blood-stained, Where sand denuded Pompey of three Triumphs, That stigma Rome will bear for ever!
Better for you to have died on the Phlegrean plain Or bowed the neck to your father-in-law.
The harlot queen forsooth of incestuous Canopus, Sole stigma branded on us by Philip's blood,
Even dared oppose our Jove with her yelping Anubis, Force Tiber to endure the threats of Nile,
Repulse the Roman trumpet with her jangling sistrum, Chase beaked Libumians with punt-poled barges, Tent the Tarpeian rock with vile mosquito nets
And hold court next to Marius' arms and statues!
What was the use of breaking Tarquin's axes (Whose proud life marks him with like name)
If now we had to endure a woman? SingTriumph, Rome, You're safe, and pray 'Long Live Augustus!'
You fled, though, to the wandering streams of frightened Nile;
Your hands accepted Romulus' fetters.
I saw your forearms bitten by the sacred snakes And your limbs channelling sleep's hidden progress.
'With this great citizen, Rome, you need not have feared me', So spoke even the tongue much wine had buried.
The lofty city on seven hills that rules the world In terror feared the threat of a female Mars.
But Gods were founders of these walls and Gods protect them;
While Caesar lives Rome hardly need fear love.
...But, sailor, whether bound for port ofleaving it, On all the Ionian main remember Caesar.,114
This is surely Propertius' most eloquent commentary on Cleopatra, and implicit in this elegy is the notion that Cynthia is to Propertius what Cleopatra is to Antony, and that Cleopatra has done to Rome what Cynthia has done to Propertius. 115 Itis also, like much ofPropertian poetry, ambiguous, opening with a reminder of men dominated by women, but ending with a call to an anonymous Roman soldier to show gratitude to Augustus for his victory at Actium. Stahl (1985:235) argues that 'somewhere in between [the beginning and close of the elegy] the surface emphasis changes, from the Propertian to the Augustan point of view.'
Propertius begins his elegy describing his condition of bondage to his lover, Cynthia, and calls upon his censurer to learn from his example. He portrays how his love for this woman is so helpless, that she not only manages his life and leads her manhood captive as slave, but she is also the yoke and
114 3.11.1-66,71-2.
115 Stab)(1985:239).
chains from which he cannot break free. Yet Propertius refuses to acknowledge that his condition is wholly abnormal, and he gives a list of other equally compelling women, under whom heroic warriors were held captive by love. Medea (9-12) performed an array of supernatural feats - those which properly belonged to her lover - so that her love for Jason might be sustained. Penthesilea the Amazon (13-16) 'dared attack the Greek ships; defeated, she won a victory over her conqueror, the hero of heroes, Achilles through the beauty which she still possessed in death. Queen Omphale of Lydia was so beautiful that the victorious Heracles, who had pacified the world and set up his trophies in the far west, helped her spin wool-with his warrior's hands (17-20)! Semiramis built the strong city and citadel of Babylon and bade Bactra bow its head to her power: just as, we recall from line [two], Cynthia has extended her jurisdiction over Propertius (21-26).'116Juxtaposed with these powerful women are placed both Cynthia and Cleopatra. Similarly, against the list of famous men conquered by such women (men the likes of Jason, Achilles and Heracles), Propertius compares himselfand Antony. Not only does he appear to be insinuating that Cleopatra and Antony are worthy of being compared to such heroic mythological characters, but he is stating, as Stahl (1985:236-7) phrases it, that 'there is no cowardice and nothing astonishing or abnormal in his [own] surrender to Cynthia, because enough instances are known, in which women ruled not only unimportant figures like poets, but held sway over undefeated warriors..., handled a man's affairs..., acted as successful statesmen (Babylon), even bade other countries bow to their own (as Semiramis bade Bactra).'
Yet having described in epic terms a list ofcommanding women and heroic men, it is noticeably odd that Propertius describes Cleopatra in such scathing and scornful words. Instead of using the glamorizing tone he uses of Medea and the others, Propertius rather develops a lengthy attack on Cleopatra, glorifYing Augustus for his victory over her, insinuating, 'No wonder ifI am dominated by a woman -look at Cleopatra.'117We are reminded of Propertius' earlier description of Antony in 2.16.37-40:
'Look at the leader who lately, amid vain alarms, filled Actium' s bay with his doomed soldiers: a base love made him turn his ships in flight and seek refuge at the ends of the world.'118
116 Stabl (1985:236).
117 Griffm (1985:33-34).
118 TranslatedbyGoold (1990).
Propertius' tone in this comparison ofCleopatra and Antony is clearly denigrating - 'Look at Antony:
infamis amor was his ruin; glory to Octavian for his clemency.'119 Stahl (1985:237) adds that in 3.11.29-56, 'it appears strange that thewoman shall be considered a possible object ofcrimina; even more strange that the poet allows her man (coniugii) to share the blame (obsceni, 31) - has Propertius not been on an excusing mission for himself, the man, rather than on an accusing one? ...Is Propertius torpedoing his own argument? Has he suddenly changed sides and accepted the censurer's terms?'
In these lines, Propertius has moved from mythology into recent history, to include in his list of exempla his last couple, Antony and Cleopatra, of whose affair an official contemporary version already existed. Under an ambiguous veil of political sycophancy, Propertius now continues his original argument regarding the slavery of men to women in love. He is not torpedoing his earlier argument and he is certainly not changing sides as Stahl earlier questioned. In an excellent analysis ofthe intended meaning and implication ofthe second halfon .11, Stahl (1985 :23 8-47) explains that Propertius' own moral position 'has always been that responsibility towards the beloved ranks higher than responsibility towards the regime,' and yet the elegist still chooses to follow the charge levelled against Antony by official propaganda that 'to win Cleopatra's love, Antony even traded in his fatherland and allowed her to wage war against Rome. To understand the outrage fully, one must consider the male chauvinist ingredient in Roman political thinking. The point in our passage is that a woman who selects her own lovers from the flock of her slaves (30) and even includes a Roman citizen in this group (31) annihilates the traditional position oftheRomanpaterfamilias by inventing a female counterpart to it.'120
But far more disturbing, Stahl goes on to argue, is the threat that Cleopatra posed to Rome, illustrated through Propertius' portrayal of Semiramis as the successful female statesman and conqueror. Through this exemplum, Propertius broadens his view from private (erotic) to public (political) rule exercised by women over men, hereby preparing the way for Cleopatra's political challenge to Rome. Thus 'Propertius, correspondingly, can implicitly compare himself not only to Antony but also to threatened Rome herself (58).... We find him saying that there is nothing
]]9 Griffm (1985:34).
120 Stab)(1985:238).
astonishing in subjugation to (or by) a woman, since, apart from the cases already mentioned, this has already happened to a Romantriumvir, and would have happened to Rome itself and its senators if this other woman had only had her own way...'l2l
Propertius goes on to include, very subtly and in a manner most politically correct - if one can use this tenn to reflect the politics of Rome in the first century RC. - Julius Caesar in the list of men dominated by women, with Cleopatra being the seductress once again. In only six lines, Propertius manages not only to provide a geographical background to the rule of Cleopatra, but a sly mention of her lover, whose liaison with Cleopatra was not too dissimilar to Antony's.
'Delinquent Alexandria, land most attached to guile, And Memphis, to our cost so often blood-stained, Where sand denuded Pompey of three Triumphs, That stigma Rome will bear for ever!
Better for you to have died on the Phlegrean plain
Or bowed the neck to your father-in-law [Julius Caesar].'122
This arch-seductress, Propertius will have us remember, not only caused Julius Caesar (Augustus' adoptive father) to fall under her spell such that 'he reinstated her as queen..., but also, when being besieged with her in Alexandria in the winter of 48/47 RC., was himself on the brink of having to give up Rome, political career, and even his physical existence.' 123 Furthennore, her threat to Rome was made even more acute by her presence there from that time on until Caesar's death in 44 B.C.
So, why then, ifto mention the affair ofCleopatra and Augustus' predecessor would simply not have been appropriate in the Augustan age, does Propertius so elusively include a reference to Julius Caesar in 3.11? Stahl (1985:242) argues that to include this reference 'would be the most beautiful confinnation of Propertius' original thesis that surrender of a man to a woman, even at the price of his career, is nothing extraordinary ifthe poet could include Caesar ...among his examples... .It must have been a deep satisfaction to the poet that his talent allowed him to enlist the Emperor's "father"
as a witness for the defence against the charges he had to face from circles close to Augustus' moral
121 ibid., 239.
122 Prop. 3.11.33-38.
123 Stahl (1985 :240).
r~stprFHpn p~~fnl.se of his all-consuming love for Cynthia.'
In conclusion, then, Propertius has not strayed from his original argument examining the power of female influence over men. Cleopatra's ambitious desire to exercise jurisdiction over Roman men and Rome itself, is expanded upon throughout the course of the elegy, so as to justify the poet's feelings of helplessness caused by Cynthia's similar power over him. By directing attention to the abominable Cleopatra, Propertius distracts the sole blame and criticism away from himself, arguing 'before blaming me, direct your criticism against the influence which Caesar's mistress exercised in Rome!' 124 Similarly, Propertius, by using and expanding upon the example offered by Cleopatra's relationships with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, further defends his 'Romanness' and his manhood as defined by his culture and the expectations it placed on him in the context ofhis relating to women.
The mythological examples offered in 3.11.9-26 had done well to prove that his subjugation by a woman was certainly not abnormal, but the victims of Cleopatra - Caesar, Antony and Rome itself - have disclosed that he cannot even be called un-Roman. 125
Finally, the elegy succeeds in not only offering a delightful defence for Propertius against his perceived accuser, but it also manages to include a deferential compliment to thePrincepshimself:
'SingTriumph, Rome, You're safe, and pray 'Long Live AugustuS!'126
...But Gods were founders of these walls and Gods protect them;
While Caesar lives Rome hardly need fear Jove.' 127
Propertius calls upon the anonymous sailor to whom his poem is directed to extol the glory and invincibilityofthePrinceps,and reminds him that while the gods, supporting and directing Romulus, founded the greatness ofRome, Augustus continues to protect and save Rome and her citizens from the rule of, and subjection to, foreign women the likes of Cleopatra.
124 Stahl (1985:243).
125 ibid., 244.
126 3.11.49-50.
127 3.11.65-6.
Thus 3.11, while being the elegy which refers to Cleopatra most directly and pointedly, does not really reflect Propertius' personal views on her character in any conclusive manner. Cleopatra's presence in the poem exists solely to offer a philosophical example by which Propertius may defend his own relationship with Cynthia. The elegist is not interested in the details of Cleopatra's personality, rule or relationship with Antony. His sole motive for the poem is to explain and justify why his woman manages his life (1), leads his manhood captive as slave (2), and why he cannot break free from the yoke of her domination (4). Cleopatra serves as a wonderful contemporary example by which he can free himselfofguilt and blame, and from the charges ofcowardice and unmanliness.
Thus while she is termed meretrix regina ('harlot queen' [39]),famulos interfemina trita suos ('laid by her own slaves' [30]), Propertius seems to be happy to employ that invective levelled against Cleopatra following Actium, while remaining seemingly disinterested in, and even indifferent to, her actual character. Like all the Augustan poets, Propertius follows the Augustan interpretation of Actium, and is committed to employing that spiteful hostility and loathing for Cleopatra that was almost expected ofRomans following her defeat and death in 30RC. However, this willingness to oblige Augustan expectation could simply have been to humour his patron and the current Roman ideology circulating Roman society two decades after Actium.
Having examined ancient literary constructions of Cleopatra in Plutarch, Vergil, Horace and Propertius, in my next chapter I will examine William Shakespeare's play, Antony and Cleopatra, to discuss how Cleopatra's identity evolved over the approximate fifteen-century period separating the Greek and Roman writers and the Renaissance playwright. In the course ofthe chapter I will discuss to what extent Shakespeare relied on the Greek and Roman constructions of Cleopatra examined in the first two chapters of this dissertation, in his own depiction of Antony and Cleopatra.