Friday, 16 January 2015

Pope Francis:
''You Cannot Poke Fun at Someone's Faith''

''Pro Archia Poeta''

I respect where the Pope is coming from but the job of Satirists has always been to poke fun- at everything and anything where
the hypocrisy justifies satire.

I am not sure if the Pontiff studied Latin at school but if he did, and I assume he did, we were both reading very different textbooks [or hymn sheets.]
The personalities I studied, from about 100 B.C. had sex, drugs, wild music, wild parties, and of course, satire as key ingredients to their misplaced existences.
So in fact the characters I was reading about in Latin spent [as W.C. Fields, said about himself*] half of their money on alcohol, gambling and wild women, and the other half they wasted.
I'll leave out the sex, drugs and rock n' roll and just focus on the
'Charlie Hebdo' of that day:
One of my greatest influences from childhood was the work of
Marcus Tullius Cicero. His 'Pro Archia' I learnt off by heart – and memorized every page. I think in my textbook it was about 53 pages.
Licinius Archias was a poet and satirist who had 'insulted' Senators and famous individuals by 'ridiculing' them in his works.
In actual fact such was never the case so no charges of this nature could ever be brought against him. 
This was never done the Charlie Hebdo 'in your face' manner
but through flowing lines of beautiful poetry where the virtues and deeds of say, one general in battle, were obliquely contrasted with those less courageous or less virtuous (always by inference never by direct charge – but the educated could easily decipher (or indeed imagine) the coded 'messages' in the flowing lines of laudation and inferential scorn for those less worthy of praise.)

I think in this instance Wikipedia may be mistaken in just referring to Archias as 'a poet' - ''Pro Archia Poeta''.**
 He was much much more than an ordinary poet. He was a poet and a satirist and had 'politely' ridiculed many (by inference) in his poems. Unfortunately he made one powerful enemy too many. One such person it is believed he may have inadvertently (or deliberately) ridiculed was the very powerful Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.

Archias also had one particular influential supporter.  Marcus Tullius Cicero had been his pupil and remained a loyal friend throughout.

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus was the equivalent of a powerful political godfather and kingmaker having excelled as a warrior general and came from a very wealthy and noble family, well connected in Rome and in the Senate. His aspiration was ultimate power.   So he was someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth, proved himself in battle, used to getting his own way and not used to being insulted, especially by 'Barbarians' (Archias was not originally Roman but Greek) and decided to 'teach' Archias a lesson in 'respeto' and the meaning of power when exercised by one of 'the untouchables'.
It may well have been that the objective was, through this prosecution, to teach all 'Barbarians' (or non-Romans granted citizenship) to 'know their place' respect power, not to 'cross the line' and most important of all, never in your wildest dreams think of crossing Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus because he would not suffer fools nor satirists gladly and would, through this prosecution, send his own legal not so flowing 'message' to the educated, and to the poets and wannabe satirists.
There may also have been some jealously about the fact that Archias wrote such beautiful poetry about his patron (and sponsor, incidentally, for Roman citizenship) the Roman General Lucius Licinius Lucullus, and there was, in effect nobody of any worth to write such memorable lines about himself - [the great] Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.
Pompey and Lucullus were also bitter rivals for power and influence in the Senate.
So there may well have been much more behind the case which
was 'engineered' against Archias – it has been suggested by experts and noted historical researchers.
That Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus was using this trial of Archias to get at (and ultimately destroy) his arch rival for power and influence in the Senate - Lucius Licinius Lucullus - is very plausible.
There was, of course, a legal basis to bring charges against Archias.   It would have been to the ridicule and have caused eternal laughter amongst the Senators and Plebes for Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus to claim that a [Barbarian] poet had insulted him – it would also have been 'beneath his station'. The general public would have thought he had 'lost the plot' if he had directly accused Archias accordingly.
What was contrived were charges that Archias was not a Roman citizen and should therefore be expelled from Rome on these grounds.
The Lex Papia de Peregrinis (65 B.C.) gave authorities full powers to expel foreigners falsely claiming to have Roman citizenship.
[You might call it today a power to expel non-EU nationals and forcibly send them back home.]
The introduction of this law in itself, was, some noted historians and experts agree, yet another plot – this time against Caesar - who supported the claim of the Latin colonies north of the River Po.
[You need to appreciate that there were so many plots by Senators, Generals, aspirants for power and influence, and by their financial supporters (lobbyists) and backers, that it's a wonder any work ever got done in the Senate(!); does this remind you of somewhere more contemporary?]
Marcus Tullius Cicero was a lawyer, a poet, philosopher, a consul, a constitutionalist and a political theorist.
He is also considered one of Rome's greatest ever orators and prose writers.
Cicero had been a pupil of Licinius Archias so it was perhaps natural that he would be defending his former teacher against
the crime of non-citizenship.
In any event, Cicero's defense of Archias ('Pro Archia') was and still is today, regarded as one of the greatest pieces of prose oration ever produced by mankind and it has become
synonymous with mastery of 'style' – the equivalent of YSL,
Jean Paul Gaultier or Karl Lagerfeld in how to use words and
sentences with style, to convey powerful ideas, meanings and philosophies.
Interestingly, we do not know the outcome of Cicero's defense of his teacher but any educated Judge (or Senator) reading Cicero's defense, if not moved to tears from the beauty of the oration and evidence, would, I have no doubt, have dismissed the case against Archias as 'frivolous' so as not to end up 'on the wrong side of history' - as the one-time butchers of the now 'Lazarus' resurrected  Charlie Hebdo, most certainly have.


©Patrick Emek, 2015



Epilog:
Archias The Poet
So little has survived of Archias' works that we must piece it all together based both on the evidence available and what we can most likely infer.
Historians will argue that there is no evidence Archias was a satirist – and I cannot refute this based on the works which have survived to this day.
As evidence of his genius my basis is his onetime pupil, Cicero,
whom everyone agrees was a genius.  But where did Cicero first learn then build upon such masterful skills in poetry, satire and oration?   'Pro Archia' one could easily dismiss as a mere exercise in his own masterful skills – but I read something more than this.  Historically Archias was a poet, full stop.  My argument is that as a 'newcomer' he might only impart such contentious skills in his own complex use of speech to exceptionally talented acolytes – of which Cicero was one.

PE


 

“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted.”


― W.C. Fields

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/678820-i-spent-half-my-money-on-gambling-alcohol-and-wild




**http://en.wiki2.org/wiki/Pro_Archia_Poeta

 







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompey







at