Maecenas

Peter Mountford

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367137472
• eBook ISBN: 9780429647710
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Historical Biographies
• Index: History

While much has been written of the importance of Agrippa in Augustus' rise to power as the first emperor of Rome, Maecenas remains a shadowy figure despite being a vital part in the success of Augustus. After the assassination of Julius Caesar, Maecenas was a vital negotiator between Octavian and Mark Antony in the years leading up to the battle of Actium, and a wise political advisor to Augustus during the early years of the new regime. This is the first biography of Maecenas in English and gives due credit to the stature of Maecenas both as a confidant of the emperor and as patron of the poets Virgil, Horace and Propertius. The book devotes a chapter to each poet's relationship with Maecenas and the Augustan regime: the chapter on Virgil, while considering his relationship to Maecenas and Augustus, argues that the origins of his choice of Aeneas may lie in Etruria rather than elsewhere, while the chapter on Horace assesses one of the closest documented relationships of Roman history. The chapter on Propertius wrestles with the disparate views of scholars on the question of his relationship with the Augustan regime and argues that, at heart, he remains an Umbrian/Etruscan rather than a Roman. A crucial feature of the book is the provision of 161 texts from ancient Roman and Greek authors which mention Maecenas. Based on sustainable evidence this study of the importance of Maecenas takes scholarship in new and important directions.

1 Maecenas

Gaius Cilnius(?) Maecenas (c70–8 BC), the Etruscan eques, right-hand man of Augustus and literary patron, was one of the most important figures of the Augustan age, yet he remains a figure in the background about whom little is known. There has been much discussion among scholars as to whether his name included Cilnius. Two primary sources give him this name: Tacitus Annals 6.11 (Extract 83) and Macrobius Saturnalia 2.4.12 (Extract 123). Richer begins his Life of Maecenas with the words ‘Gaius Cilnius Maecenas’ to which he adds the footnote:

Gaius was the proper name of Maecenas, Cilnius that of his family, and Maecenas his surname. It was customary among the Romans to give the family name to their children the very next day after they were born; the proper name was assumed when they put on the toga virilis; and the surname distinguished the different branches of the family; this however was often given on other occasions. Two surnames were sometimes bestowed on one and the same person the last of which was added on account of some gallant action or victory e.g. Africanus given to Scipio.¹ Varro, Book vii, says Maecenas took his name from some place (in Etruria).²

Meibomius, on whose Latin biography of Maecenas Richer had based his work, also discusses Maecenas’ name in some detail.³ Thus in the seventeenth century the discussion began.

Scholars also discuss the origin of his name, particularly the likelihood of Cilnius, the name of a ruling family in Arretium, coming from his mother’s side, and the reasons why Maecenas might have adopted the name. Avallone considers him to be linked to the Cilnii, a ruling family in Arretium, on his mother’s side, an argument which Heurgon also makes.⁴ Earl discusses his name and suggests that Maecenas may have adopted the name Cilnius from his mother’s family, because it had a Roman ending and he hoped that it would give him respectability. He suggests that his name was simply Maecenas and that Maecenas was vain and devious enough to adopt his mother’s Roman sounding family name with its added link to the ruling family of Arretium.⁵ Simpson considers that ‘a long-standing and convincing argument has been made against Cilnius as his patronym’.⁶ He also argues that, although Richardson/Cadoux suggest that ‘Cilnius may have been his mother’s name’, there is no evidence to support this view.⁷ He suggests that, although Augustus used this name in the letter to which Macrobius refers, the emperor was merely referring to Maecenas’ Etruscan background rather than his family background, and that Tacitus may have misunderstood the same letter from Augustus because he thought that Maecenas had suppressed his family name just as Agrippa had done. It is also possible, however, that he was simply C. Maecenas and that Tacitus, knowing of the significance of the Cilnii in Arretium through Livy (10.3), thought that the C stood for Cilnius rather than Gaius, although nomina were never abbreviated. Simpson considers that, if his name were Cilnius, it would have been evident in other primary sources. This may well be true, but it is also possible that the use of the name Cilnius by any primary source could be evidence of a family link which was known to that ancient source.

Shannon Byrne, who is much influenced by Walker on the innuendo and ‘allusiveness’ in Tacitus, agrees with Simpson that Cilnius is not a patronymic, but disagrees when she argues that it is thought that Maecenas was related to the gens Cilnia.⁸ She points to the fact that some commentators from Bormann (1883) onwards, including Heurgon (1964), speculate that Maecenas added this name following Etruscan custom. She sees a much more sinister and subtle game being played by Tacitus. She argues that Tacitus in Annals 6.11 adds the name to put further emphasis on the unsuitability of Augustus’ choice of the equestrian Maecenas as de facto praefectus urbi, when he was absent from Rome, as this post was subsequently filled by senators. She concludes: ‘Such presentation is indicative of Tacitus’ approach to the history of the principate in general, and of his treatment of Maecenas in particular’. She claims that this view is supported by Annals 3.30.2 where Tacitus is being critical of Tiberius and Sallustius, but mentions Maecenas, as he was the first imperial minister whose activities were shrouded in secrecy. She may well be right in her summation of Tacitus’ approach to the principate in general, but her argument against Maecenas is based on a very small number of references to Maecenas in the Annals. There are only seven passages in which Tacitus names Maecenas (Extracts 81–87). In the first (Annals 1.54) he refers to Maecenas love for Bathyllus, a relationship which is open to dispute. In the second (Annals 3.30) it is true that Tacitus may be being critical of the role Maecenas played under Augustus, but the criticism does not seem strong. With regard to the third (Annals 6.11), there is conclusive evidence that the position of praefectus urbi began to be a regular appointment at the end of Augustus’ reign and under Tiberius.⁹ There is no evidence that Maecenas held such a position. The fourth and fifth (Annals 14.53 and 14.55) refer to Seneca’s plea to Nero to be allowed to retire, as Agrippa and Maecenas had been allowed to do by Augustus, and Nero’s reply. The sixth (Annals 15.39) refers to Nero watching the fire in Rome from the tower on Maecenas’ estate. The seventh (Dialogue on Oratory 26) condemns Maecenas’ manner of speaking, much as Seneca had in Epistulae Morales 114. Byrne seems to read too much into the limited Tacitean evidence. Le Doze, although he agrees that the name Cilnius came from his mother’s side, suggests that we have no way of knowing how or when the two families came together.¹⁰ Chillet discusses the gens Cilnia at length.¹¹ He considers that the gens Cilnia is firmly based in the valley of Chiana and the town of Arezzo, while Maecenas’ family had been equestrians in Rome for several generations.¹² He concludes that, although there is a lack of definitive evidence, Maecenas may be related to the Cilnii through his mother.

Origins

His place of birth was Arretium (Arezzo) and he was of Etruscan descent, perhaps connected to Etruscan royalty as the writer of the anonymous elegy suggests (regis eras, Etrusce, genus).¹³ Meibomius, in his biography of Maecenas written in Latin, gives a detailed genealogy for Maecenas which links him to Elbius Volturrenus, the Tyrrhenian king who was killed at the battle against the Romans at Lake Vadimon in 283 BC.¹⁴ Richer, without any supporting evidence, but presumably following Meibomius, states that his father was Menodorus, who was descended from Elbius Volturrenus, the last king of Arretium, himself descended from Porsenna of Clusium.¹⁵ If they are correct, Maecenas is linked to Etruscan royalty on his father’s side as well as being linked to the famous Cilnii through his mother. Also, if they are correct, we should rule out the possibility that he was descended from L. Maecenas, as Chillet argues.¹⁶ Macrobius quotes Augustus’ playful farewells to Maecenas, which emphasise Maecenas’ Etruscan background and include Arretium and the Cilnii and Porsenna.¹⁷

No text gives a year for his birth, although Horace gives us the date of his birth as 13 April.¹⁸ Meibomius discusses the year at some length, but concludes that it is unknown.¹⁹ Richer agreed.²⁰ Avallone states that he was born in one of the years between 74 and 70 BC.²¹ Le Doze suggests that Maecenas is older than Octavian and Agrippa, but places his birth in some year from 74–68, as he concedes that there is no clear evidence.²² Schmidt states that he was born in 70 BC.²³ Potter gives his dates as 70–8 BC.²⁴ Andreae states that he was born in Rome on 13 April 65 BC.²⁵ Others, such as Blond and Everitt, suggest that he was born closer to the birth dates of Augustus and Agrippa in 63 BC.²⁶ Schoonhoven suggests that Avallone and Schmidt may have been following Meibonius, who put forward these dates based on the fact that Maecenas is referred to as senex in the early lines of the first Elegy and Varro considered the word referred to those over sixty.²⁷ Buchan states that Octavian and Agrippa were both nineteen in 43 BC, and Maecenas a few years older.²⁸ Not one of these writers provides any supporting evidence for the date which they give for his birth. They are, therefore, guesses working back from the year of his death. Since there is no primary evidence for a year of his birth, we must assume that the early commentators Meibomius and Richer are correct in arguing that it cannot be known.

There is no evidence of his early life, of when he came to Rome and how he rose to prominence there. André in a summary of his life at the beginning of his book suggests that from 60–46 BC he was perhaps educated and brought up in Rome and Naples. He also suggests that from 46 until April 44 BC he spent time with Octavian studying in Athens and Apollonia. André does not, however, produce any supporting evidence for any of this. Suetonius writes that Octavian had been sent ahead to Apollonia by Julius Caesar when he was preparing an expedition against Parthia in 45/44 BC, and that Octavian spent the time waiting there in study.²⁹ Suetonius also writes that he took Apollodorus of Pergamon, his teacher of rhe...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. Maecenas
• 2. Publius Vergilius Maro
• 3. Quintus Horatius Flaccus
• 4. Sextus Propertius
• Conclusion
• Appendix A. Latin and Greek texts which mention Maecenas, together with translations
• Appendix B. Table of Greek vases with representations of Aeneas and Anchises
• Appendix C. A response to the Bittarello case
• Appendix D. Consolatio ad Liviam
• Bibliography
• Index