Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:30:16.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soft Hands, Hard Power: Sponging Off the Empire of Leisure (Virgil, Georgics 4)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2018

Tom Geue
Tom Geue*
Affiliation:
University of St Andrews
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article seeks to jumpstart the politico-historicist scholarship on Virgil's Georgics in the direction of Marxist criticism. I argue that the Georgics should be understood less as a battle site for intra-elite power struggles or civil strife, more as an ideological stomping ground to work out, and dig in, the particular relationships of slavery and imperialism disfiguring the Roman world in 29 b.c.e. After a brief analysis of the dynamics of labor in Books 1–3, I train on a close reading of Book 4, which sees the bees (et al.) as crucial to the new dominant logic of compelling others (whether slaves or provincial subjects) to produce and give up the fruits of their labour — all for the leisured enjoyment of the upper crust.

Keywords

VirgilGeorgicslaborMarxist criticismslaveryimperialismhistoricismbeesEgyptaddressee
Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 108 , November 2018 , pp. 115 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018. Published by The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armstrong, R. 2014: ‘The War on Terra: Insurgent Weeds in the Georgics’, conference paper delivered at New Perspectives on Virgil's Georgics, 3–4 April 2014, University College London.Google Scholar
Barchiesi, A., and Scheidel, W. (eds) 2010: The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies, Oxford/New York.Google Scholar
Batstone, W. W. 1997: ‘Virgilian didaxis: value and meaning in the Georgics’, in Martindale, C. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Virgil, Cambridge, 125–44.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W. 1970: Illuminations (ed. Arendt, H.; trans. Zohn, H.), London.Google Scholar
Bishop, J. H. 1988: The Cost of Power: Studies in the Aeneid of Virgil, Armidale.Google Scholar
Blouin, K. 2012: ‘Between water and sand: agriculture and husbandry’, in Riggs 2012, 22–37.Google Scholar
Bradley, K. R. 2010: ‘Freedom and slavery’, in Barchiesi and Scheidel 2010, 624–36.Google Scholar
Briggs, W. W. 1980: Narrative and Simile from the Georgics in the Aeneid, Leiden.Google Scholar
Brown, B. 2016: The Mirror of Epic: The Iliad and History, Berrima.Google Scholar
Buchheit, V. 1972: Der Anspruch des Dichters in Vergils Georgika: Dichtertum und Heilsweg, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Capponi, L. 2005: Augustan Egypt: The Creation of a Roman Province, London.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. (with Segal, C. (ed.)) 1986: The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and Other Latin Poets, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Cramer, R. 1998: Vergils Weltsicht: Optimismus und Pessimismus in Vergils Georgica, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
Dahlmann, H. 1954: Der Bienenstaat in Vergils Georgica, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
DuBois, P. 2009: ‘Slavery’, in Boys-Stones, G. R., Graziosi, B. and Vasunia, P. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies, Oxford, 316–27.Google Scholar
Eagleton, T. 1976: Marxism and Literary Criticism, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 1991: Vergil's Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic: The Art of Allusion in Literary History, Oxford.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. C. 2002: ‘Una cum scriptore meo: poetry, principate and the traditions of literary history in the epistle to Augustus’, in Feeney, D. C. and Woodman, A. J. (eds), Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace, Cambridge, 172–87.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, W. 1996: ‘Labor and laborer in Latin poetry: the case of the moretum’, Arethusa 29.3, 389–418.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, W. 2000: Slavery and the Roman Literary Imagination, Cambridge/New York.Google Scholar
Galinsky, G. K. 1988: ‘The anger of Aeneas’, American Journal of Philology 109, 321–48.Google Scholar
Galinsky, G. K. 1996: Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction, Princeton.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. K. 1998: ‘Didactic poetry as “popular” form: a study of imperatival expressions in Latin didactic verse and prose’, in Atherton, C. (ed.), Form and Content in Didactic Poetry, Bari, 67–98.Google Scholar
Giusti, E. 2014: ‘Virgil's Carthaginians at Aen. 1.430–6: Cyclopes in bees’ clothing’, Cambridge Classical Journal 60, 37–58.Google Scholar
Giusti, E. forthcoming: ‘Bunte Barbaren setting up the stage: re-inventing the barbarian on the Georgics’ theatre-temple (G. 3.1–48)’, in Freer, N. and Xinyue, B. (eds), New Perspectives on Virgil's Georgics, London.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. 1979: ‘The Fourth Georgic, Virgil and Rome’, Greece and Rome 26, 61–80.Google Scholar
Habinek, T. 1990: ‘Sacrifice, society, and Vergil's ox-born bees’, in Griffith, M. and Mastronarde, D. (eds), Cabinet of the Muses: Essays on Classical and Comparative Literature in Honor of Thomas G. Rosenmeyer, Atlanta, GA, 209–23.Google Scholar
Habinek, T. 1998: The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient Rome, Princeton.Google Scholar
Habinek, T. 2011: ‘Situating literacy at Rome’, in Johnson, W. A. and Parker, H. N. (eds), Ancient Literacies, Oxford, 114–40.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. 1998: Virgil, Oxford.Google Scholar
Herklotz, F. 2012: ‘Aegypto capta: Augustus and the annexation of Egypt’, in Riggs 2012, 11–21.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. 2010: ‘Historicism and formalism’, Barchiesi and Scheidel 2010, 369–85.Google Scholar
Hopkins, K. 1978: Conquerors and Slaves, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hopkins, K. 2004: ‘Novel evidence for Roman slavery’, Past & Present 138, 3–27 (reprinted in Kelly, C. M. (ed.), Keith Hopkins: Sociological Studies in Roman History, Cambridge, 2017, 398–424).Google Scholar
Jameson, F. 1971: Marxism and Form: Twentieth-Century Dialectical Theories of Literature, Princeton.Google Scholar
Jenkyns, R. 1993: ‘Labor improbus’, Classical Quarterly 43, 243–8.Google Scholar
Jördens, A. 2012: ‘Government, taxation, and law’, in Riggs 2012, 56–67.Google Scholar
Joshel, S. R. 2010: Slavery in the Roman World, Cambridge/New York.Google Scholar
Knapp, R. C. 2011: Invisible Romans: Prostitutes, Outlaws, Slaves, Gladiators, Ordinary Men and Women … the Romans that History Forgot, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kolendo, J. 1993: ‘The peasant’, in Giardina, A., The Romans (ed. and trans. Cochrane, L.), Chicago, IL, 199–213.Google Scholar
Kronenberg, L. J. 2000: ‘The poet's fiction: Virgil's praise of the farmer, philosopher, and poet at the end of Georgics 2’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 100, 341–60.Google Scholar
Lambert, M. 1988: ‘Marxist literary criticism and Virgil: Georgics 4.153–196’, Akroterion 33, 58–65.Google Scholar
Lavan, M. 2013: Slaves to Rome: Paradigms of Empire in Roman Culture, Cambridge/New York.Google Scholar
Leigh, M. 1994: ‘Servius on Vergil's senex Corycius: new evidence’, Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici 33, 181–95.Google Scholar
Leigh, M. 2016: ‘Vergil's Second Eclogue and the class struggle’, Classical Philology 111 (4), 406–33.Google Scholar
Levine, C. 2015: Forms: Whole, Rhythm, Hierarchy, Network, Princeton.Google Scholar
Lieberg, G. 1982: Poeta Creator: Studien zu einer Figur der antiken Dichtung, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Lowrie, M. 2015: ‘Rege incolumi: orientalism and security at Georgics 4.212’, in Fedeli, P. and Günther, H.-C. (eds), Virgilian Studies: A Miscellany Dedicated to the Memory of Mario Geymonat (26.1.1941–17.2.2012), Nordhausen, 322–44.Google Scholar
Macherey, P. 2006: Theory of Literary Production (trans. Wall, G.), London.Google Scholar
Milnor, K. L. 2014: Graffiti and the Literary Landscape in Roman Pompeii, Oxford/New York.Google Scholar
Moretti, F. 2013. Distant Reading, London.Google Scholar
Morgan, L. 1999: Patterns of Redemption in Virgil's Georgics, Cambridge/New York.Google Scholar
Morley, N. (ed.) 1999: Marx and Antiquity (Special Volume of Helios 26.2), Lubbock, TX.Google Scholar
Morley, N. 2007: ‘Civil war and succession crisis in Roman beekeeping’, Historia 56.4, 462–70.Google Scholar
Mynors, R. A. B. 1990: Georgics, Oxford.Google Scholar
Nadeau, Y. 1984: ‘The lover and the statesman: a study in apiculture (Vergil, Georgics 4.281–558)’, in Woodman, A. J. and West, D. A. (eds), Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus, Cambridge, 59–82.Google Scholar
Nappa, C. J. 2005: Reading after Actium: Vergil's Georgics, Octavian, and Rome, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Otis, B. 1963: Virgil: A Study in Civilized Poetry, Oxford.Google Scholar
Perkell, C. G. 1978: ‘A reading of Virgil's Fourth Georgic’, Phoenix 32, 211–21.Google Scholar
Perkell, C. G. 1989: The Poet's Truth: A Study of the Poet in Virgil's Georgics, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Rathbone, D. 1993: ‘Egypt, Augustus and Roman taxation’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave-Glotz 4, 81–112.Google Scholar
Reay, B. 2003: ‘Some addressees of Virgil's Georgics and their audience’, Vergilius 49, 17–41.Google Scholar
Reed, J. D. 2007: Virgil's Gaze: Nation and Poetry in the Aeneid, Princeton.Google Scholar
Reynolds, J., and Lloyd, J. A. 1996: ‘Cyrene’, in Bowman, A. K., Lintott, A. and Champlin, E. (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 10: The Augustan Empire, 43 BC–AD 69 (2nd edn), Cambridge, 619–40.Google Scholar
Riggs, C. (ed.) 2012: The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rose, P. W. 1992: Sons of the Gods, Children of Earth: Ideology and Literary Form in Ancient Greece, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Rose, P. W. 2012: Class in Archaic Greece, Cambridge/New York.Google Scholar
Ross, D. O. 1987: Virgil's Elements: Physics and Poetry in the Georgics, Princeton.Google Scholar
Rutherford, I. 2008: ‘Authorial rhetoric in Virgil's Georgics’, in Volk, K. (ed.), Vergil's Georgics, Oxford, 81–93.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A., Mitsis, P., and Clay, J. S. (eds) 1994: Mega Nepios: Il destinatario nell'epos didascalico, Pisa.Google Scholar
Sebald, W. G. 2002: Austerlitz (trans. Bell, A.), London.Google Scholar
Smolenaars, J. J. L. 1987: ‘Labour in the Golden Age: A unifying theme in Vergil's poems’, Mnemosyne 40, 391–405.Google Scholar
Spurr, M. S. 2008: ‘Agriculture and the Georgics’, in Volk 2008, 14–42.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. 2001: ‘The old man and his garden (Verg. Georg. 4, 116–148)’, Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici 47, 175–95.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. 2011: Playing the Farmer: Representations of Rural Life in Vergil's Georgics, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F. 1982: Lands and Peoples in Roman Poetry: The Ethnographical Tradition, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F. 1988a: Georgics, I: Books I–II, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F. 1988b: Georgics, II: Books II–IV, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F. 1991. ‘The “sacrifice” at the end of the Georgics, Aristaeus, and Vergilian closure’, Classical Philology 86 (3), 211–18.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. J. 1994: ‘Egypt, 146–31 B.C.’, in Lintott, A., Rawson, E. and Crook, J. A. (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 9: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146–43 BC (2nd edn), Cambridge, 310–26.Google Scholar
Volk, K. 2002: The Poetics of Latin Didactic: Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid, Manilius, Oxford/New York.Google Scholar
Volk, K. (ed.) 2008: Vergil's Georgics, Oxford/New York.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, R. 1982: ‘The plough-chariot: symbol of order in the Georgics’, The Classical Journal 77, 213–30.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, L. P. 1969: The Georgics of Virgil: A Critical Survey, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Williams, R. 2005 (first published 1980): Culture and Materialism: Selected Essays, London.Google Scholar
Young, E. 2013: ‘Homer in a nutshell: Vergilian miniaturization and the sublime’, Proceedings of the Modern Languages Association 128 (1), 57–72.Google Scholar
Zanker, A. T. 2011: ‘Some thoughts on the term “pessimism” and scholarship in the Georgics’, Vergilius 57, 83–100.Google Scholar