sigaloenta (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ricardienne) wrote2008-02-24 09:30 pm
ricardienne) wrote2008-02-24 09:30 pm
Entry tags:
Regulus, Atillius and Arcturus: some thoughts
So: the Regulus Ode. Most of me is horrified. Regulus is really awful: the worst kind of stiff-necked more-virtuous-than-thou Roman type, and I am still a little bit in doubt about the intention of the whole poem: surely Horace can't be writing straight-faced?
But then, I get to parts like this, and I'm moved, in spite of myself, because, OMG SO NOBLE AND PRINCIPLED (and plenty far away in time from actually affecting me):
But what I really want to talk about is Regulus Black, actually. I only have DH in French, as it happens, but this is more or less what happens: Regulus became a Death-Eater, then volunteered Kreacher to Voldemort, who took him to The Cave and forced him to drink the potion in the basin, then abandoned him. But Regulus had ordered Kreacher to return, so he did. He related the experience to Regulus, who later took Kreacher back to the cavern, ordered him to switch the lockets and keep the real one safe/destroy it, drank the potion himself, and died.
Obviously the parallel is the self-sacrifice and bravery for 'the cause' but I think there may be more subtle things going on, too. It's hard to know much about Regulus' (HP) state of mind and motivation, but I'm tempted to think of him applying some of Regulus' (SPQR) words to himself: nec uera uirtus cum semel excidit/ curat reponi deterioribus and deciding that death is the only decent way out for him, having once been a Death Eater. It's certainly an attitude that seemed to play elsewhere in the series. Atqui sciebat quae sibi barbarus/ tortor pararet is more clearly relevant to the situation, being true of both Reguluses. Similarly, it's hard not to read about the fundamental baseness of the one who fears death, and not not think of Harry Potter. Noble man resists being taken in by the lure of the easy way out and personal gain. He stands up for his principles and dies.
One thread that is very present in the Regulus Ode is slave vs. free, and Regulus (SPQR) makes much of the indignity of Roman soldiers (and therefore citizens) being treated as slaves and suffering to be treated so. For Regulus (HP), too, the blurring of the line between slave and free is crucial to his ultimate noble decision. But for this Regulus, it is the mistreatment of a slave that changes his allegiance. Regulus (SPQR) takes on the identity of his captors' slave as a condition of his captures with the claim that one who has been so can never really be a citizen. Regulus (HP), too, effectively takes the place of a slave, by letting himself be killed in the manner that Voldemort had intended Kreacher die expendable.
But given how, I'm sorry, repulsive much of Regulus' (SPQR) speech is, I think I can actually see Reglus (HP) as a subversion of Horace's Attilius Regulus. (At this point, I'm not sure that it's necessary to think about Horace Slughorn setting Regulus Black on a certain path of honor and tradition, but then, that is present, isn't it?) Regulus (HP) is held up fairly consistently as the "good son" in the old-fashioned, blood-status conscious world of the Blacks. He is, in a way, the robustus … puer of the second Roman Ode who is going off to fight the good fight for the elite wizarding world. But, as we know, this good fight is actually the bad fight. Regulus (HP) is more the immiserabilis/ captiva pubes whom Regulus (SPQR) condemns than Regulus himself. It is true that Regulus (HP) has been "captivated" by Voldemort, but his disillusionment is with the end result of a system he has been brought up to support, not with a deviation from it. His death, likewise, is toward the (secret) destruction of that system. I want to come back to Kreacher here. Regulus (HP) is redeemed (or lost, as I want to take it from the opposite point of view) through compassion to someone he isn't necessarily supposed to think of as worthy of it (a very HP theme, and maybe one that is not possible for pre-Christianity Romans). His personal loyalties to his dependents come before his loyalty to 'the cause' and prove to be much worthier. Contrast this with Regulus (SPQR) who is adamant about a slaves unworthiness, and who will not take up his place as a spouse and parent in order to make a point. From the last stanza, one might even argue that he has made 'the state' his business and has fulfilled it instead of his ordinary duties to his personal dependents. So Regulus (HP) is really the anti-Regulus, who is betrayed and enslaved by 'the good fight' and dies in abandoning it.
I suppose I can't really take Harry Potter as a deep subversion of Horace's militaristic streak, where the brave young youth is actually just as much a degraded captive while serving his country as he is when dishonorably surrendered to its enemies. But that is what happens to Regulus (HP). And it's worth noting that the things Horace starts his ode by deploring -- mixed marriage between Roman soldiers and the daughters of Eastern enemies -- is an issue straight out of the later HP books.
But then, I get to parts like this, and I'm moved, in spite of myself, because, OMG SO NOBLE AND PRINCIPLED (and plenty far away in time from actually affecting me):
fertur pudicae coniugis osculum
parvosque natos ut capitis minor
ab se removisse et virilem
torvus humi posuisse voltum,
But what I really want to talk about is Regulus Black, actually. I only have DH in French, as it happens, but this is more or less what happens: Regulus became a Death-Eater, then volunteered Kreacher to Voldemort, who took him to The Cave and forced him to drink the potion in the basin, then abandoned him. But Regulus had ordered Kreacher to return, so he did. He related the experience to Regulus, who later took Kreacher back to the cavern, ordered him to switch the lockets and keep the real one safe/destroy it, drank the potion himself, and died.
Obviously the parallel is the self-sacrifice and bravery for 'the cause' but I think there may be more subtle things going on, too. It's hard to know much about Regulus' (HP) state of mind and motivation, but I'm tempted to think of him applying some of Regulus' (SPQR) words to himself: nec uera uirtus cum semel excidit/ curat reponi deterioribus and deciding that death is the only decent way out for him, having once been a Death Eater. It's certainly an attitude that seemed to play elsewhere in the series. Atqui sciebat quae sibi barbarus/ tortor pararet is more clearly relevant to the situation, being true of both Reguluses. Similarly, it's hard not to read about the fundamental baseness of the one who fears death, and not not think of Harry Potter. Noble man resists being taken in by the lure of the easy way out and personal gain. He stands up for his principles and dies.
One thread that is very present in the Regulus Ode is slave vs. free, and Regulus (SPQR) makes much of the indignity of Roman soldiers (and therefore citizens) being treated as slaves and suffering to be treated so. For Regulus (HP), too, the blurring of the line between slave and free is crucial to his ultimate noble decision. But for this Regulus, it is the mistreatment of a slave that changes his allegiance. Regulus (SPQR) takes on the identity of his captors' slave as a condition of his captures with the claim that one who has been so can never really be a citizen. Regulus (HP), too, effectively takes the place of a slave, by letting himself be killed in the manner that Voldemort had intended Kreacher die expendable.
But given how, I'm sorry, repulsive much of Regulus' (SPQR) speech is, I think I can actually see Reglus (HP) as a subversion of Horace's Attilius Regulus. (At this point, I'm not sure that it's necessary to think about Horace Slughorn setting Regulus Black on a certain path of honor and tradition, but then, that is present, isn't it?) Regulus (HP) is held up fairly consistently as the "good son" in the old-fashioned, blood-status conscious world of the Blacks. He is, in a way, the robustus … puer of the second Roman Ode who is going off to fight the good fight for the elite wizarding world. But, as we know, this good fight is actually the bad fight. Regulus (HP) is more the immiserabilis/ captiva pubes whom Regulus (SPQR) condemns than Regulus himself. It is true that Regulus (HP) has been "captivated" by Voldemort, but his disillusionment is with the end result of a system he has been brought up to support, not with a deviation from it. His death, likewise, is toward the (secret) destruction of that system. I want to come back to Kreacher here. Regulus (HP) is redeemed (or lost, as I want to take it from the opposite point of view) through compassion to someone he isn't necessarily supposed to think of as worthy of it (a very HP theme, and maybe one that is not possible for pre-Christianity Romans). His personal loyalties to his dependents come before his loyalty to 'the cause' and prove to be much worthier. Contrast this with Regulus (SPQR) who is adamant about a slaves unworthiness, and who will not take up his place as a spouse and parent in order to make a point. From the last stanza, one might even argue that he has made 'the state' his business and has fulfilled it instead of his ordinary duties to his personal dependents. So Regulus (HP) is really the anti-Regulus, who is betrayed and enslaved by 'the good fight' and dies in abandoning it.
I suppose I can't really take Harry Potter as a deep subversion of Horace's militaristic streak, where the brave young youth is actually just as much a degraded captive while serving his country as he is when dishonorably surrendered to its enemies. But that is what happens to Regulus (HP). And it's worth noting that the things Horace starts his ode by deploring -- mixed marriage between Roman soldiers and the daughters of Eastern enemies -- is an issue straight out of the later HP books.