Friendship and Patronage
24
Friendship and Patronage
David Konstan
1. Introduction. Ancient Rome was a deeply stratified society. From the time when Latin literature first began to be produced in the third century B.C. (see Goldberg, Chapter 1 above), and indeed well before then, the Roman census divided citizens according to wealth and status, with the senatorial order at the top and proletarians, that is, those whose wealth consisted solely in their children, at the bottom rung. In these circumstances, the poor depended for security and well being on powerful families, who in turn relied on them for political support. Such relations, largely informal in the historical period but sanctioned by custom, were what the Romans understood by the terms "‘patron"’ (patronus) and "‘client"’ (cliens). In the late Republic, clients were expected to vote for their patron if he ran for office, while he in turn undertook to represent them, if necessary, in legal proceedings (Deniaux (1993): 2-12, with bibliography; on judicial patronage, David [1992]).
Friendship, in turn, was ideally a relationship between equals: philotês isotês went the Greek jingle (Aristotle EN 8.5.1157b36; EE 7.8.1241b13): ‘"amity is parity’." This does not mean that bonds of mutual affection could not develop across class boundaries; there is abundant evidence that they did, and that such relations were recognized as true friendships. And yet, class lines are not so easily erased, and there are indications that attitudes of deference and condescension often persisted among such friends. One sign of this self-consciousness is the practice of referring to friends of higher social standing as ‘"powerful friends’" (amici potentes), ‘"great friends’" (magni amici), and the like. Indeed, among cultivated people the terms ‘"patron’" and "‘client"’ seem to have been avoided, and polite usage insisted on the term "‘friend"’ (amicus) even where the inequality of the relationship seems to us glaring (Nauta (2002): 14-18).
This convention does not in and of itself mean that the friendships in question were purely formal, with no element of reciprocal fondness. Many scholars today, however, hold that even among equals, amicitia was basically a matter of services rather than affection. Thus, Michael Peachin (2001a: 135 n. 2) observes that "‘the standard modern view ... tends to reduce significantly the emotional aspect of the relationship among the Romans, and to make of it a rather pragmatic business."’ Some go so far as to treat Roman friendship as a formal, institutionalized relation involving reciprocal obligations and established on specific terms (Caldelli (2001): 22). On this view, hierarchical friendships differ from those between equals chiefly in respect to the kinds of services due. This surely overstates the business-like character of friendship (see Konstan (1997) and (2002); Konstan 2002 ): there are numerous passages in Roman literature which reveal the core of amicitia to be love or amor, as Cicero maintained (De Amicitia On Friendship 26; cf. Partitiones oratoriae 88). Undoubtedly, personal interests might compromise friendships, and differences in power opened the way to exploitation of the relationship whether by the richer or the poorer party. But such behavior, then as now, was an abuse of friendship, not its essence.
Nevertheless, the association between friendship and patronage may have blurred to some extent the distinction between genuine intimacy and more pragmatic connections. If a humble man spoke of social superior as his "‘friend,"’ was he merely using a euphemistic formula for "‘benefactor,"’ or was he pretending to a mutuality beyond and above the difference of station? Richard Saller [(1989): 57]) affirms: "‘To discuss bonds between senior aristocrats and their aspiring juniors in terms of 'friendship' seems to me misleading, because of the egalitarian overtones that the word has in modern English. Though willing to extend the courtesy of the label amicus to some of their inferiors, the status-conscious Romans did not allow the courtesy to obscure the relative social standings of the two parties."’ I should rather say that, just because the notion of friendship or amicitia retained the sense of a voluntary affective tie, the ambiguity cannot be eliminated. Cicero, writing in the persona of Laelius, the intimate friend of Scipio Aemilianus (On FriendshipDe Amicitia 19.69), gives the right nuance: "‘in a friendship, it is crucial to be a peer to one's inferior. For there are often certain outstanding cases, like Scipio in our bunch, if I may put it so: never did he put himself above Philus, or Rupilius, or Mummius, or friends of lower rank [ordo]."’ Laelius adds (20.71) that "‘just as those who are superior in a relationship of friendship and association should make themselves equal to their inferiors, so too inferiors ought not to take it ill that they are surpassed in ability or fortune or station."’ Class differences are taken for granted, but Cicero does not on that account dismiss such friendships as inauthentic. Roman friendship was thus a loaded concept: it designated a selfless, loving bond, but it might also connote a reciprocal expectation of services, whether between equals or unequals, such as true friendship too afforded, albeit on the basis of generosity and love rather than practical considerations (Raccanelli (1998): 19-40).
Finally, we may note that Roman social relations were governed by a refined sense of etiquette that enabled men to preserve their face or dignitas in the intensely competitive and status-conscious world of the Roman aristocracy. The elaborate expressions of good will and affection in which these courtesies were encoded are not signs of insincerity, but rather forms of civility that were "‘a necessary prelude to social transactions"’ (Hall (forthcoming)2002: ms. 6;; cf. Hall 1996, 1998). Politeness was, indeed, so integral to Roman conversation that even the most intimate expression of affection necessarily made use of the same coinage. Thus, Cicero writes to Atticus (Letters to AtticusAd Atticum 12.3.1):
"‘I imagine you are the one person less ingratiating [blandus] than I am, or else, if we are both so from time to time toward someone, at least we never are among ourselves. So listen when I tell you this matter-of-factly: may I cease to live, dear Atticus, if not just Tusculum, where I am otherwise content, but even the Isles of the Blessed mean so much to me that I would be whole days without you."’
Cicero employs the formulas of gracious hyperbole even as he fears that his affirmation "‘may appear indistinguishable from the polite effusions conventionally exchanged between aristocrats"’ (Hall, forthcoming 2002: ms. 13). Nor were such courtesies confined to exchanges between members of the upper classes; the young Marcus Cicero, while studying in Athens, employs the same conventions in a letter written to his father's freedman and secretary Tiro (Letters to FriendsAd Familiares 16.21; Hall, forthcoming 2002).
The preceding discussion indicates the complex context in which literary relationships of friendship and patronage must be understood. To this we must add the further consideration that these relations changed to some degree over time, and especially with the transformation in Roman social life that accompanied the shift from Republic to Empire. The best procedure, accordingly, is to respect chronology and follow the evolution of literary patronage and friendship, beginning with the earliest Roman writers.
2 : Patronage and friendship in early Roman literature.
The first author of whom we hear (see Goldberg, Chapter 1 above) is Livius Andronicus, who composed tragedies and comedies and translated Homer's Odyssey into the archaic Saturnian meter. Information concerning Livius' social status is largely late and contradictory, but it seems he had been a prisoner of war, was subsequently freed, and worked as a school teacher in Rome. It is conceivable that he was a client of the Livius clan. The historian Livy reports (27.37) that Livius was chosen to compose a choral poem for girls in the year 207, a critical moment during the second Punic War. Livius Salinator was one of the consuls in that year, and it is plausible that he acted in the role of patron to the poet, at least to the extent of granting him the commission.
It is remarkable that not just Livius but all poets active in Rome in the century following him appear to have been foreigners, with none belonging to the highest level of the aristocracy. Gnaeus Naevius, who composed an annalistic epic on the first Punic War as well as tragedies and comedies, came from Campania to the south of Rome (Aulus Gellius 1.24.2). He seems to have mocked the Metellus family, one of whom was consul and another praetor in 206, and to have paid for this indiscretion with a stint in prison (Plautus Braggart SoldierMiles Gloriosus 209-12 may allude to this episode). Evidently, his social position was precarious; whether he had a patron on his side is moot.
Ennius, who, like Naevius, wrote an epic history of Rome along with tragedies and comedies (and works in various other genres), was born in Calabria and brought to Rome by Cato the Elder, according to Cornelius Nepos (Cato 1.4). Ennius accompanied Marcus Fulvius Nobilior on his campaign to Aetolia (189), perhaps with a view to celebrating his achievements, and he acquired Roman citizenship thanks to Fulvius' son, Quintus. Aulus Gellius (12.4) quotes some verses from the seventh book of Ennius' Annales for their depiction of the ideal relationship between a man of lesser station and an upper-class friend (hominis minoris erga amicum superiorem), which he regards as constituting veritable laws of friendship. The passage had been taken by the first-century B.C. antiquarian Aelius Stilo to reflect Ennius' own relationship with Fulvius:
"‘He summons a man with whom he often shares his table and conversation and takes counsel on his affairs, after having spent the better part of the day deliberating on the highest matters of state in the wide forum and hallowed senate.... A learned, loyal, gentle man, pleasant, content with his station, happy, cultivated, saying the right thing at the right time, amenable, of few words..."’ (cf. Goldberg (1995): 120-23).
Were the Fulvii, then, Ennius' patrons? Yet Ennius was also on intimate terms with the Scipios. Cicero (On the OratorDe Oratore 2.276) records an anecdote in which Scipio Nasica once knocked at Ennius' door and was told by the maid that Ennius wasn't at home; when Ennius dropped by at Nasica's a few days later, Nasica himself answered that he was out. Ennius protested that he recognized Nasica's voice, and the latter replied: "‘Insolent fellow: when I was looking for you I believed your maid that you weren't home, and you don't believe me in person?"’ Whatever the truth of this story, Cicero thought it plausible, and it presupposes an easy comradeship between the poet and the patrician.
Plautus, the earliest Roman writer whose works, or at least some of them, survive entire, came to Rome from Umbria. According to Varro (cited in Aulus Gellius 3.3.14), he made money in the theater, lost it in commerce, and earned it back again by writing comedies, which were so successful that he could live off the proceeds of his art. There is no mention of a patron or other personal relations in the biographical tradition, which in any case is of dubious value. With Terence, however, the case is different. His cognomen, Afer, makes it at least plausible that he was brought to Rome as a slave from the area round Carthage, as Suetonius claimed (Life of Terence Vita Terenti 1). Later, he was on intimate terms with Scipio Aemilianus, Laelius, and their crowd, and was selected to present a play at the funeral celebration for Aemilius Paulus, Scipio's father (one sees the importance of individual sponsorship). What is more, malicious rumor had it that powerful friends helped Terence compose his comedies (Suetonius On PoetsDe Poetis 11; other references in Courtney 1993: 88). In the prologue to The BrothersAdelphoe (15-19), Terence himself affirms (via one of his actors):
"‘As to what those spiteful fellows say, that noblemen help him and in fact constantly write together with him, they may consider this a terrible insult, but he [Terence] deems it the greatest praise if he pleases men who please all of you and Rome"’ (cf. The Self-TormentorHeautontimoroumenos 22-26; on their identities, cf. Gruen (1992): 197-202).
In Cicero's On FriendshipDe Amicitia, moreover, Laelius speaks of Terence as his familiaris (24.89), which suggests that (in Cicero's view) he regarded the playwright as an intimate.
Of other comic writers, it is known that Caecilius Statius came to Rome as a slave and prisoner of war, and lived for a time with Ennius. Among tragic poets, Pacuvius, the nephew of Ennius, was born in Brindisi, and Accius, who first performed in Rome in 140 and wrote also annals and other works, hailed from Pisaurum in Umbria and was a client of Decimus Junius Brutus.
Evidently, the Roman aristocracy of this period disdained to write poetry, at least in the popular forms of drama, epic, and commissioned lyrics. As Cicero puts it in the Tusculan Disputations (Tusc.1.1.3), "‘poets, then, were recognized or received among us late, even though it is stated in [Cato's] Origines that guests at feasts used to sing to the flute about the virtues of distinguished men; yet a speech of Cato's asserts that there was no honor accorded even to this kind [of poetry]"’ (1.2.3; cf. Aulus Gellius 11.2.5; Krostenko (2001): 22-31). I cannot help wondering whether the insinuation that powerful friends helped Terence compose his comedies was more a slur against aristocrats who stooped to writing poetry than the literary incompetence of their protégé (contra Gruen (1992): 202).
In contrast to the foreign and relatively humble origins of the earliest playwrights and epic poets, Cato himself inaugurated the publication of history and speeches in Latin (see Kraus, Chapter 17 above, and Berry, Chapter 18 above), and these genres remained the province of the highest echelon of society; as Cicero says, "‘we quickly embraced oratory"’ (Tusc.ulan Disputations 1.3.5; cf. Sciarrino 2004 forthcoming). While the powerful might patronize professional poets, they distanced themselves from them by composing a different kind of literature.
Modern readers are in many ways heirs of Romanticism, with its vision of the autonomy of art as an expression of individual creative genius. The idea of writing to order, or to gratify the taste or interests of a rich patron, seems to us inconsistent with the very idea of literature. But literature itself is a modern concept, to which no term in ancient Greek or Latin quite corresponds. Departments of literature in universities, for example, tend to mark off literary prose and poetry from scientific or political writings in a way that would have seemed strange to ancient Romans, although classics continues to entertain a broad conception of its object of study, not discriminating against philosophy, history, or forensic oratory in favor of more obviously literary categories such as lyric poetry or drama. The very title of the present volume thus poses the paradox that Simon Goldhill (1999) has dubbed "Literary History without Literature." If there is no literature, what happens to literary patronage?
"Patron," or rather patronus, is a Latin word, and in its earliest usage referred to a social relationship between an aristocrat and his dependents or clientes, poor citizens or freedmen who offered deference and services in exchange for protection and benefactions. In early Rome, the tie of clientship was legally binding, but it retained a powerful moral force into the late Republic and beyond. Clients were expected to vote for their patron if he ran for office, and he in turn undertook to represent them in legal proceedings, when necessary (survey of recent literature in Deniaux 1993: 2-10). Some men, like Scipio Aemilianus and *, had enough clients to raise a private army (Appian Hisp. 84; *).
It is within this social context that we must imagine the relationship between writers and their patrons in early Rome. For example, the earliest Latin writer for whose activity we have something like reliable evidence is Livius Andronicus in the mid-third century B.C. Livius, a school teacher, translated Homer's Odyssey into Latin, and also composed tragedies and comedies, probably based on Greek models as well. Information concerning Livius' status is largely late and contradictory, but it seems to be agreed that he had been a prisoner of war and subsequently freed; if so, it is plausible that he remained a client of the Livius clan. The historian Livy reports (27.37) that Livius Andronicus was chosen to compose a choral poem for girls in the year 207, a critical moment during the second Punic War; Livius Salinator was one of the consuls in that year, and it is reasonable to suppose that he acted in the role of patron to the poet. The poet Gnaeus Naevius, who composed an annalistic epic on the first Punic War as well as tragedies and comedies, was from Campania to the south of Rome (Aulus Gellius 1.24.2). He appears to have mocked the Metellus family, one of whom was consul in 206 and another praetor, and paid for it with a stint in prison. Clearly, his social position was precarious; whether he had a patron on his side is moot.
Ennius too was a foreigner, born in Calabria and brought to Rome by Cato the Elder, and he, like Naevius, wrote an epic history of Rome as well as tragedies and comedies. He accompanied Marcus Fulvius Nobilior on his campaign to Aetolia (189), perhaps with a view to celebrating his achievements, and he acquired Roman citizenship thanks to Fulvius' son, Quintus, who granted Ennius a plot of land in a colony that he was founding. Were the Fulvii, then, Ennius' patrons? Aulus Gellius (12.4) cites some verses from the seventh book of Ennius' Annals for their depiction of the ideal relationship between a man of lesser station and an upper-class friend (hominis minoris erga amicum superiorem), which he regards as constituting veritable laws of friendship, and which were taken in antiquity to reflect Ennius' own relationship with Fulvius: "a learned, loyal, gentle man, eloquent, content with his station, happy, cultivated, saying the right thing at the right time, amenable, of few words," etc. Ennius was also on intimate terms with the Scipios. Cicero records (On the Orator 2.276) an anecdote in which Scipio Nasica once knocked at Ennius' door and was told by the maid that he wasn't at home; when Ennius dropped by at Nasica's a few days later, he himself answered that he was out. Ennius protested that he recognized Nasica's voice, and the latter replied: "Insolent fellow: when I was looking for you I believed your maid that you weren't home, and you don't believe me in person?" Whatever the truth of this story, Cicero thought it plausible. What kind of relationship, then, obtained between Ennius and the great men of his day? It is unlikely that the Scipiones were Ennius' patrons in the strict Latin sense of the term, but they might well have encouraged his literary activities. It has been speculated that Ennius' prose adaptation of Euhemerus' fantastic account of the human origin of the gods was a way of imputing prospective divinity to the heroes of his own time, like the Fulvii and Scipiones. Yet Cicero's story presupposes an easy comradeship between the poet and the patrician.
True friendship was understood by ancient writers to a relationship between equals (cf. Aristotle EN 8.5.1157b36; EE 7.8.1241b13), and some modern critics have doubted that, in a society as stratified as ancient Rome -- a state of affairs if anything exacerbated in the imperial period -- a genuine friendship could have existed across so wide a gap as that which separated the senatorial order from the humble station of a man like Ennius. Thus, Richard Saller (1989: 57), a pioneer in the modern study of Roman patronage, writes:
To discuss bonds between senior aristocrats and their aspiring juniors in terms of "friendship" seems to me misleading, because of the egalitarian overtones that the word has in modern English. Though willing to extend the courtesy of the label amicus to some of their inferiors, the status-conscious Romans did not allow the courtesy to obscure the relative social standings of the two parties. On the contrary, amici were subdivided into categories superiores, pares and inferiores (and then lower down the hierarchy, humble clientes). Each category called for an appropriate mode of behaviour, of which the Romans were acutely aware (Pliny, Ep. 7.3.2, 2.6.2; Seneca, Ep. 94.14). Resemblances between the behaviour of aristocratic amici inferiores and clientes suggest that amici inferiores can appropriately be analysed under the heading of patronage.
At least for the imperial period, Saller virtually identifies friendship between unequals with clientship. Now, Cicero, writing in the persona of Laelius, the intimate friend of Scipio Aemilianus (On Friendship 19.69), maintains that "in a friendship, it is crucial to be a peer to one's inferior. For there are often certain outstanding cases, like Scipio in our bunch, if I may put it so: never did he put himself above Philus, or Rupilius, or Mummius, or friends of lower rank [ordo]." Laelius adds (20.71) that "just as those who are superior in a relationship of friendship and association should make themselves equal to their inferiors, so too inferiors ought not to take it ill that they are surpassed in ability or fortune or station." Class differences are taken for granted, but Cicero does not simply dismiss on that account the idea that such friendships are real. Vertical friendship was conceptually parasitical on horizontal friendship, and to the extent that it imported into the idea of friendship the element of social distance, it existed in dialectical tension with the bond between equals.
But what was friendship for the Romans? Michael Peachin, in a recent and important collection of essays on ancient friendship (2001: 135 n. 2), identifies as "the standard modern view of Roman friendship a view that tends to reduce significantly the emotional aspect of the relationship among the Romans, and to make of it a rather pragmatic business." On this view, Roman friendship was a formal and institutionalized relation, entailing reciprocal obligations and established (and dissolved) under specific conditions (Caldelli 2001: 22). Such an approach lends itself to the idea that hierarchical friendships were different in kind from those between equals, in accord with the difference in services due. Cicero's attempt to smooth out the disparity through a genteel code of conduct is seen as a gesture toward the Greek philosophical tradition that has little relevance to actual Roman patterns of conduct.
I have argued elswhere (Konstan 1997; cf. Konstan 2002) that, on the contrary, Greek and Roman friendship was in principle a voluntary emotional tie based on mutual affection and respect. While such a relation undoubtedly involved reciprocal expectations of good will, help, and other signs of love, just as friendship does today, it was nevertheless understood to be basically other-regarding and unselfish. Undoubtedly, personal interests might compromise friendships, and differences in power opened the way to exploitation of the relationship whether by the richer or the poorer party. But such behavior, then as now, was an abuse of friendship, not its essence.
To be sure, the Romans were more conscious than we are of the deference due to degree. Their social relations in general, whether among equals or across social class, were governed by a refined sense of etiquette that enabled men to preserve their public face or dignitas in the intensely competitive and status-conscious world of the Roman aristocracy. But the elaborate expressions of good will and affection in which exchanges of courtesies were encoded are not in themselves signs of insincerity, but rather, as Jon Hall has shown in a series of elegant papers (1996, 1998, 2002), a recognized form of politeness or civility that were often "a necessary prelude to social transactions" (2002: ms. 6). Indeed, as Hall argues (2002), such courtesies were not confined to exchanges between members of the upper classes; the young Marcus Cicero, while studying in Athens, employed the same conventions in a letter written to his father's freedman and secretary Tiro (Letters to Friends 16.21). What is more, the currency of politeness was so integral to Roman conversation that even the most intimate expression of affection necessarily made use of the same coinage. Thus, Cicero writes to Atticus (Letters to Atticus 12.3.1): "I imagine you are the one person less ingratiating [blandus] than I am, or else, if we are both so from time to time toward someone, at least we never are among ourselves. So listen when I tell you this matter-of-factly: May I not live, dear Atticus, if not just Tusculum, where I am otherwise content, but even the Isles of the Blessed are of such value to me that I would be without you for entire days." As Hall (2002: ms. 13) notes, Cicero employs the formulas of gracious hyperbole even as he fears that his affirmation "may appear indistinguishable from the polite effusions conventionally exchanged between aristocrats." There is no question of insincerity here; the language Cicero uses, whether for intimate friends or acquaintances he chooses to treat as friends, is one and the same. When the Romans spoke of friendships between writers and their aristocratic patrons, they were simultaneously being courteous and sincere; that is, they were saying in the only way they could that a bond of mutual intimacy, loyalty, and love might transcend distinctions of rank.
Plautus, the earliest Roman writer whose works, or at least some of them, survive entire, came to Rome from Umbria. According to Varro (as reported by Aulus Gellius, 3.3.14), he made money in the theater, lost it in commerce, and earned it back again by writing comedies, which were so successful that he could live off the proceeds of his art. There is no mention of a patron or other personal relations in the biographical tradition, which in any case is of dubious validity. With Terence, however, the case is quite different. His cognomen, Afer, makes it probable that he was brought to Rome as a slave from the area round Carthage, as Suetonius claimed (Life of Terence 1). There can be little doubt, however, that he was close to Scipio Aemilianus, Laelius, and their crowd. He was selected to present a play at the funeral celebration for Aemilius Paulus, Scipio's father (this kind of occasion gives an idea of the importance of individual sponsorship). What is more, malicious rumor had it that Terence's powerful friends assisted him the composition of his comedies (cf. Suetonius On Poets 11). In the prologue to The Brothers (15-19), Terence himself affirms (in the voice of one of his actors): "As to what those spiteful fellows say, that noblemen help him and in fact constantly write together with him, they may consider this a terrible insult, but he [Terence] deems it the greatest praise if he pleases men who please all of you and Rome" (cf. The Self-Tormentor 22-26). In Cicero's On Friendship, moreover, Laelius speaks of Terence as his familiaris (24.89), which suggests (in Cicero's view) that he regarded the playwright as an intimate. Although Terence may not have been a formal client of Scipio's, it is clear that contemporary gossip around the year 160 recognized the importance of powerful backers to a playwright's success in the theater.
Of other comic writers, it is known that Caecilius Statius came to Rome as a slave and prisoner of war, and lived for a time with Ennius. Among tragic poets, Pacuvius, the nephew of Ennius, was born in Brindisi, and Accius, who first performed in Rome in 140 and wrote also annals and other works, hailed from Pisaurum in Umbria and was a client of Decimus Junius Brutus.
Rome was not Athens: the Roman aristocracy disdained to write poetry, never mind in so popular a medium as drama. I cannot help wondering whether the insinuation that Terence had help in composing his comedies was as much a slur against the Hellenizing Scipio and his friends as against their protege. In contrast to the foreign origins and relatively low social status of the earliest playwrights and epic poets, history and oratory in the early Republican period were the province of the highest echelon of society. This is understandable: it pertained to the aristocracy to pronounce public discourses and record the history that they themselves were making, often with a view to playing up the achievements of their own families, although at a later time they might entrust the task to clients such as Claudius Quadrigarius and Valerius Antias. They might also, like Cato, take an interest in practical matters such as farming, or else in law. Men of the class of Quintus Fabius Pictor and Cato, needless to say, required no patrons; they themselves were patrons to their clients. What is worth emphasizing is that the roles of patron and client corresponded to a differentiation in literary genres. This again indicates how the modern conception of literature is cross-cut in antiquity by categories that are inextricably linked to relations of class and power. Although the same is true for certain literary forms today (there are few upper-class performers of rap music, for example), the idea of "literature" tends to obscure the significance of such differences in the social provenance of artists.
Surviving Roman comedies (see Panayotakis, Chapter 9 above) are We have seen that Ennius, in his Annals, described the comportment suitable to the lesser party in an unequal friendship. It would be interesting to determine whether comedy too, the only genre in which there survive complete works composed prior to the first century B.C., in some way reflected Roman social relations of patronage and friendship. Since the plays we have are all based on Greek models, and tend to reflect Greek social relations. Friendships are generally respected in the plays; the which represent a social world in which patronage in the Roman sense did not exist, one must separate out the specifically Roman elements in the Latin comedies to see how friendship might have been inflected in the new social environment. This task is the harder for the fact that none of the Greek originals corresponding to the surviving plays by Plautus and Terence have come down to us (with one partial exception). Generally speaking, Greek comedy, like tragedy, did not represent dissension between friends (conflict between fathers and sons, on the other hand, was the norm). In a few cases where a friend is suspected of a doublecross (Roman comedies -- notably, Plautus' Bacchides and Epidicus, and Terence's Andria) -- there are scenes in which a friend is suspected of a doublecross, although each time it turns out to have that the doubt rested on a misapprehension. It also looks as though the Roman playwrights themselves created or amplified these scenes (on Bacchides, del Corno ( 2001): 42-44, Raccanelli (1998): 79; on Andria, Donatus ad 997), which may suggest that Might these episodes conform to a specifically Roman taste?
In the Andria, Charinus accuses Pamphilus of marrying the woman he loves out of sheer spite (645: postquam me amare dixi, conplacitast tibi). But the character Charinus, as we know from Donatus (ad 997), was added by Terence to the plot of Menander's Andria, and the rivalry between the two friends almost certainly had no parallel in the Greek original. In the Bacchides, where the protagonist suspects his friend of being a rival for the love of the courtesan Bacchis (in fact, there are two Bacchises), we are, quite exceptionally, in a position to compare Plautus' treatment with a papyrus fragment of the Menandrean model (The Double-Deceiver). While Plautus' lover delivers a passionate denunciation of the other's treachery (534 ff.), Menander quickly exposes the error and nips the quarrel in the bud (del Corno 2001: 42-44; Raccanelli 1998: 79). In the Epidicus, Chaeribulus claims he has no money to lend to his mate, Stratippocles (114-19). Stratippocles avows that deeds, not words, prove the friend (cf. Raccanelli 1998: 164-66), but turns at once to Epidicus for a solution, though later he again asserts that Chaeribulus has money stored up at home (328-36; the charge introduces some characteristically Plautine word-play). Though Chaeribulus makes another brief appearance shortly afterwards (344-79), he is immaterial to the plot, and I suspect that his role may be Plautus' own contribution. tTension between friends, then, may have been was a more congenial theme to Roman dramatists than to Greek.
It is generally agreed that Plautus expanded the roleparts of clever slaves and wily parasites as against over his Greek models, and it may be that he was at least in some degree sometimes adapting them se roles to the pattern of Roman clientship in Roman society. Certainly, he has no hesitation in applying the terminology of patron and client to relations of dependency, often by way of comic caricature or inversion (there are some forty or fifty instances, many concentrated in particular episodes). Conceivably, the scene in the Braggart SoldierMiles Gloriosus in which the wealthy bachelor rich Periplectomenus describes his slave in the throes of thinking up concocting a plot (200-17), with its famous allusion to the imprisonment of Naevius (209-12), evoked for a Roman audience the relation between a patron and a client poet. True friendship between a master and slave was also at least a possibility; in Plautus' Prisoners of WarCaptivi, the slave Tyndarus, who has switched roles with his master Philocrates, reminds the latter: "‘be faithful to one who is faithful: keep me as your friend forever, be not less faithful to me than I have been to you, for you are now my master, my patron, my father"’ (439-44, abridged). Terence is more of a purist in this as in other respects, although he too imports Roman customs into his plays; in The BrothersAdelphoe, for example, a character inquires in a scene clearly inspired by Roman legal conventions: "‘have you no client, friend, or guest-relation [hospes]?"’ (529).
3 : Patronage and friendship in the literature of the later Republic. Toward the end of the second century B.C., members of the upper classes began to dabble in new forms of poetry, though not yet epic or drama (one exception perhaps proves the rule: Gaius Julius Caesar Strabo produced tragedies, but seems to have been disdained by his potential associates in the collegium poetarum; Valerius Maximus 3.7.11; cf. Asconius on Cicero Pro Scauro 22).
?
Toward the end of the first century B.C., members of the upper classes began to dabble in certain new forms of poetry, though not yet epic or drama, so far as one can tell. Most notable among them was Lucilius, who was credited with the invention of the Roman genre of satire (see Goldberg, Chapter 1 above and Morgan, Chapter 12 above). Lucilius was a friend of the Scipios; , but though he kept out of politics himself, he was independently wealthy and his brother became a Roman senator. There are no references to patrons or clients in the 1300 verses that survive of his work, but though Lucilius he does speak of friendship, noting observe that "‘a friend should give good advice and take good care"’ (quoted by Nonninus 372M.26), and he contrasts the friend, who is interested in the other's mind or self mind (animum), with the parasite, who cares only about his wealth (Nonius. 331M.27). Mario Citroni (1995: 44) argues that, unlike the writers of dramatic, lyric, and epic poetry who composed for a broad public, "‘the author of a 'new' genre like satire is ... free to establish the scope of his own readership,"’ and could now address himself to an aristocratic audience whose level of literary culture had expanded enormously since the time of Ennius (some scholars suppose that epic poems were recited at aristocratic convivia [Rüpke 2001: 49-53], though I am inclined to believe, with Leo (1967) [orig. 1913]: 73, that they were disseminated principally in schools: cf. the career of Livius Andronicus, above). Several members of the nobility aristocrats also tried their hand at erotic epigrammatic verse, including Quintus Lutatius Catulus, who was consul in 102; as E. , and Valerius AedituusCourtney (1993) 75 remarks, (1993: 75), "‘the willingness of a member of the highest aristocracy to toss off imitations of Hellenistic sentimental erotic poetry ... is a new phenomenon in Roman culture at this time."’. Lyric, epigrammatic, and other miniature genres of poetry became a serious avocation among the Roman aristocracy, however, only with the so-called "‘neoteric"’ movement in the mid-first century B.C., whose chief representative, and the only one whose poetry survives in substantial measure today, was Catullus (see also Harrison, Chapter 13 above)..
The "‘new"’ poets adopted a Callimachean aesthetic of brevity and learned wit. Catullus congratulated his friend Cinna on his miniature epic, Smyrna (poemc. 95), and admired the three-volume universal history of Cornelius Nepos for its concision. In turn, he lambasted turgid poets like Volusius (poem c. 36), who composed verse annals. The sophisticated Suffenus, who was unrefined only in his poetry, wrote tens of thousands of lines of verse, according to Catullus, but perhaps these consisted of many short poems rather than one or more of epic length (the same may be true of Hortensius, in Catullus’ poemc. 95; cf. Cameron (1995): 460-61). When his friend Calvus sent him as a joke a short collection (libellus) of bad verse, Catullus assumed that Calvus had received it from a client of his, or else from a schoolteacher (poemc. 14). Perhaps we may detect, behind the partiality for an urbane muse, a lingering prejudice against the traditionally popular genres of national epic and drama (cf. Citroni (1995): 57-60).
Friendship is at the heart of Catullus' poetry :-- even love was ideally modelled on amicitia (poemc. 109), and nothing offends Catullus more than betrayal (e.g. poem , c. 30). His friendship with the orator and poet, Gaius Licinius Calvus, was legendary (poemc. 50; cf. Ovid Amores 3.9.61-62), and in general his poems project a comfortable familiarity with the most prominent figures of his day. In these verses, as also in Cicero's letters to his friends, one glimpses how friendships based on shared tastes bound together the Roman elite (Citroni (1995): 185 compares Cicero's Ad fFam. 7.22, in which Cicero describes an evening he spent with the jurist Trebatzius Testa, to Catullus poem ' c. 50 on Calvus). Catullus' family was distinguished enough to have played host to Caesar in Verona. Nevertheless, as a newcomer to Rome, Catullus may have felt the need for a patron; hence the dedication of his book to Cornelius Nepos as patronus (in poem c. 1, on the reading adopted by Goold (1983). Yet he freely attacked such powerful men as Caesar and Pompey. Whereas Naevius was humbled for an affront to the Metellus clan, Catullus carried on an affair with the wife (if it was she) of the leading Metellus of his day (Quintus Metellus Celer).
In this period, some poets consented to celebrate the achievements of great men in hexameter verse, sometimes on what seems like a commission, other times as a favor to friends. Publius Terentius Varro, who came from Atax in Gaul, wrote a poem on Caesar's conquests in that province, as well as an adaptation of Apollonius' of Rhodes' Argonautica, an Alexandrian composition that would have commended itself to the "‘neoterics"’ (on such combinations, cf. Courtney (1993): 199-200). Gnaeus Matius, who rendered the Iliad into Latin and was the first to compose mimiambi at Rome, also wrote an historical epic on Caesar in at least two books, very possibly as a gesture of friendship. Furius Bibaculus, also from the north, composed annals on Caesar's Gallic wars in at least 11 books (Macrobius Saturnalia 6.1.34; cf. Courtney (1993) 197), but was evidently unafraid to assail Octavian much as Catullus had maligned Julius Caesar (Tacitus Annales 4.34). Atticus himself had commemorated Cicero's consulship in Greek (presumably in prose), though the result was not entirely to Cicero's liking (Letters to AtticusAd Atticum 2.1.1). Cicero also put pressure on the Greek poet Archias (and perhaps on Thyillus), who evidently failed to produce, even though Cicero had assumed the role of patronus and defended him in court (Letters toAd Atticums 1.16.15). In desperation, Cicero, who had himself translated Aratus' ConstellationsPhaenomena in the neoteric manner, celebrated his own consulship in verse. Perhaps such works on living subjects were regarded as the poetic equivalent of a prose historical monograph, of the sort that Cicero had attempted to exact from his friend Lucceius (Letters to his FriendsAd Fam. 5.12; cf. Hall 1998), or else a kind of panegyric rather than narrative epic proper (Cameron (1995): 463-71).
4 : Patronage and friendship in the literature of the Augustan age. It is, however, Catullus' friendship with Gaius Licinius Calvus was legendary; Ovid could cite the pair as exemplary of mutual affection (Amores 3.9.61-62). Calvus was both a distinguished orator and a celebrated love poet in his own right. One of Catullus' loveliest poems recounts a night he spent with Calvus composing poetry (c. 50):
Yesterday, Licinius, with nothing to do
we had much sport on your tablets,
having agreed to enjoy ourselves:
each of us writing pretty verses
took his pleasure now in this metre, now in that,
exchanging sallies amid jesting and drinking.
And then I came away from this so excited
by your wit and pleasantry, Licinius,
that neither could food satisfy my poor body
nor sleep veil my eyes in peace,
but with uncontrollable delirium I tossed
all over the bed, longing to see the dawn,
that with you I might talk, that with you I might be.
But when my limbs were worn out with fatigue
and lay half-dead upon the bed,
I composed this poem for you, my dear friend,
that from it you might learn of my suffering.
Now beware of being haughty and of scorning
my entreaty, I beg you, bosom pal,
lest Nemesis claim a penalty from you.
She's an impetuous goddess: beware of offending her (trans. Goold 19*).
Catullus congratulated his friend Cinna on his miniature epic, Smyrna (c. 95), and lambasted the doggerel of others in his circle (e.g., Volusius in c. 36, who composed verse annals, though perhaps not on a large scale). What he most appreciated was brevity, even in history, as in the three-book universal history of Cornelius Nepos, to whom Catullus dedicated his book of verse. But I wonder whether we might detect, behind this Callimachean aesthetic of the slender muse, a lingering prejudice against the traditionally lower-class genre of epic. When his friend Calvus sent him as a joke a collection of bad verse, Catullus assumed that Calvus had received it from a client of his, or else from a schoolteacher (14.6-9); in any case, this was a small book (libellus, 12). The sophisticated Suffenus, who was unrefined only in his poetry, wrote tens of thousands of lines of poetry, but perhaps these too consisted of many short poems rather than one or more of epic length.
To be sure, some Romans were still producing annalistic epics, or at least poems on special topics as a favor to friends. Publius Terentius Varro, who derived from Atax in Gaul, wrote a hexameter poem on Caesar's conquests, as well as an adaptation of Apollonius' of Rhodes' Argonautica. The latter poem, in four books, was quite in conformity with the Alexandrian fastidiousness in regard to bloated compositions, and may have been tolerable to the snobbish circle of neoterics. But what of the celebration of Caesar? It was a work in at least two books, but may not have been much longer; hence, it conceivably met the requirements for conciseness that distinguished the new poets from their predecessors in epic composition. The theme suggests a certain deference to the great general, but it may have been intended (or elicited) as a gesture of friendship. Atticus had celebrated Cicero's consulship in verse, though the result was not entirely to Cicero's liking, perhaps for being too crisp and dry (Letters to Atticus 2.1.1). Cicero had also put pressure on the Greek poet Archias (and perhaps also Thyillus), who evidently failed to produce despite the fact that Cicero had taken on the role of legal patronus and defended him in court (Letters to Atticus 1.16.15). Like Varro of Atax, Cicero too had translated a brief Alexandrian hexameter poem (Aratus' Constellations) in neoteric style, and had also, faute de mieux, written two books of verse in celebration of his own consulship. Such works on living subjects may have been considered simply the poetic equivalent to a historical monograph, of the sort that Cicero had attempted to exact from his friend Lucceius (Letters to his Friends 5.12; on this letter, see Hall 1998).
(On Furius Bibaculus, Cornificius, etc. chk Granarolo in ANRW, etc.: was there a class factor?)
Almost all of Catullus' poems have an addressee, but the impression one has is less that of a coterie of poets than of a gallery of Rome's leading personalities, some friends, some enemies, including Pompey, Caesar, and Cicero, with all of whom Catullus was on easy terms. Catullus does not identify the people he names; you were supposed to know who they were. Catullus' own family was distinguished enough to have played host to Caesar when he was in the neighborhood of Verona, and he can poke fun at Memmius, with whom he served in the province of Bithynia, without fear of reprisal (Lucretius too treats Memmius, the dedicatee of his On Nature, as a friend and equal). Indeed, he attacked Caesar himself with impunity. Catullus was no Naevius, to be daunted by the Metellus clan; his beloved Lesbia was in all likelihood the wife of the leading Metellus of his day, Quintus Metellus Celer. Within this high society, nevertheless, friendship was, at least for Catullus, a supreme value: it is for him the model of an enduring romantic relationship (c. 109), and its betrayal elicits his most deliciously scandalous abuse (e.g., c. 30). In these poems, and in a different modulation in the letters that Cicero wrote to Atticus, one glimpses how the ideal of friendship among the elite -- a friendship based not so much on political alliances as on sentiment and shared interests and tastes, as Peter Brunt (19*) has demonstrated -- was at the core of a new style of poetry and, if we include epistolography, of prose.
It is, however, with the Augustan principate, and the emergence of powerful sponsors of poetry such as Maecenas, Messalla, and Augustus himself, that something like formal, state-centered literary patronage in the modern sense first appears (see Farrell, Chapter 3 above). While recognizing their vast power, one must Precisely here, however, one must be careful to determine what role these men played in the literary activity they encouraged, without importing ing anachronistic notions of political censorship and control in evaluating their role.
how writers and their audiences in an age before printing might have imagined their function. None of the major poets of this epoch were was of the senatorial class. The two greatest were of relatively humble origin. Horace was , the son of an ex-slave, (or at least maligned as such [:, according to Williams (1995)], and Virgil, who came from Mantua in the north, was helped out by Asinius Pollio after his property was confiscated in the civil wars were of relatively humble origin. Horace, indeed, addresses a certain Virgil as a "‘client of noble youths"’ (Odes 4.12.15). Were they in some sense clients of Maecenas? The term seems to have implied no insult, and Horace used it of the relationship of a certain Virgil to young noblemen (Odes 4.12.13-16):
adduxere sitim tempora, Vergili.
sed pressum Calibus ducere Liberum
si gestis, iuvenum nobilium cliens,
nardo vina merebere.
Though Some it has offended scholars to believe ithave hesitated to identify this figure with the famous poet, despite apparent allusions to his verses (Putnam (1986): 205 n. 13; cf. Mayer (1995): 288-89), but it is not implausible this may that Horace is referring here to the dead be our own Virgil at a early stage of his career (Johnson (1994) 51-55,62-64) (see Putnam 19*: Mayer 1995: 288-89). It is these two who undertook to compose a national epic (the Aeneid) and an officially sponsored lyric poem (Horace's Carmen saeculare), genres Both Horace and Virgil were beneficiaries of imperial largesse, and their connection with the center of power was well known.associated particularly with the professional poets of the third and second centuries B.C.
How did such men gain access to the privileged literary circles in Augustus' court? Horace gives us the following description (Satires 1.6.45-64):
I now come back to myself, son of a freedman father, whom they all run down as son of a freedman father.... I couldn't say that I was lucky in that it was an accident which allotted you to me as a friend, because it was certainly not chance that set you in my path; some time ago the good Virgil and after him Varius told you what I was. When I came face to face, I gulped out a few words, because tongue-tied shyness stopped me speaking out further, and told you not that I was the son of a distinguished father, not that I rode round my country estates on a Tarentine nag, but the facts about myself. Your reply, after your fashion, was brief; I left, and nine months later you called me back and bade me be numbered amongst your friends. I consider it a great distinction to have found favour with you -- who can tell the honourable from the base -- not because of an eminent father but because of integrity of life and character (trans. Brown 1995: 65).
The complexity of the term amicus is apparent here. It has been suggested that Maecenas literally inscribed Horace's name in a list of welcome visitors, and that admission to his circle was no more a matter of affection than achieving membership in an exclusive club. Brown (1995: 156) notes that "‘amicus is here also appropriate in its technical application to either party in the patron/client relationship."’ Horace was certainly aware of the price to be paid for connections to secure political advancement. He warns a bold young man just entering upon such a career: "‘Cultivating a powerful friend seems nice to those who have not experienced it; one who has fears it"’ (Epistles 1.18.86-7). As Mayer (1995: 291) puts it: "‘Lollius seemed to need advice on treading the narrow path of true independence within a hierarchical aristocracy now transforming itself into a royal court."’ Only when he has achieved the psychological independence that Epicurean philosophy confers will Lollius be ready to engage in true friendships with the rich and powerful, although even then, tact will be essential (Satires 1.3).
And yet, Horace's relationship with Maecenas, like that with his fellow poets, was or soon became one of genuine friendship. Horace's own poems indicate the quality of the bond, as in his description of the trip he took with Maecenas and others to Brindisi (Satires 1.5.31-44):
Meanwhile Maecenas and Cocceius arrive and together with them Fonteius Capito, a character of tailored perfection, second to none in his friendship with Antony.... The next day's dawn was easily the most welcome, because at Sinuessa Plotius, Varius and Virgil met us -- no fairer spirits has the earth produced, and no one's attachment to them is closer than mine. How we embraced and how great was our joy! While I'm in my right mind, there's nothing I'd compare with the pleasure of friendship (trans. Brown (1993)5: 55-57).
Some critics have seen a difference in tone between Horace's formal mention of the political grandees and the warmth he expresses in respect to his fellow poets (Estafanía 1994, citing Fedeli 1992). But no doubt his friendship with Maecenas "‘soon transcended a relation of clientship and was transformed into a mutual and sincere affection"’ (Estafanía 1994: 9). When Horace came to publishing his Odes, it is significant that the first three were so arranged as to address in turn Maecenas, Augustus, and Virgil.
Friendship as a theme is pervasive in Horace's verse, as one might expect of an adherent of Epicureanism, the philosophical school that most prized this bond (for the attitude of Roman Epicureans to friendship, cf. Cicero De finibus 1.20.65; De officiis 1.66-70). This was a notion of friendship predicated on autonomy and self-sufficiency. In a letter almost certainly addressed to his fellow poet Albius Tibullus, Horace writes (Epistles 1.4.12-16):
In a world torn by hope and worry, dread and anger,
imagine every day that dawns is the last you'll see;
the hour you never hoped for will prove a happy surprise.
Come and see me when you want a laugh. I'm fat and sleek,
in prime condition, a porker from Epicurus' herd
(trans. Rudd 1979: 138).
Horace projects a life of private ease, which he invites his friend to share (cf. Odes 2.18). No doubt he brought a similar attitude to his relationship with Augustus and Maecenas.
The elegiac poets Cornelius Gallus, Tibullus, Propertius, and Ovid,, along withnd some lesser figures such as Lygdamus, were of pertained to the equestrian class, the census rank below that of senator. Rather than compose epic or drama, they limited themselves (with the exception of Ovid) to short, Callimachean compositions, that were new to Rome and dealt largely with personal erotic themes (see Gibson, Chapter 11 above), sometimes even pointing up the tension between servitude to a mistress and service to the state (Tibullus 1.1.1-6, Propertius 2.7). Nevertheless, Augustus and his ministers enlisted themTibullus and Propertius, as they had Virgil and Horace, in support of their political and social program. In this context, a new sub-genre of Latin poetry came into being: the recusatio, or "‘refusal,"’ in which a poet protested his incapacity to write epic eulogies of Augustus' achievements in war and peace (Virgil Eclogues 6.3-8; Horace Odes 1.6, 2.12, 4.2; Propertius 2.1, 3.1, 3.9, 2.10, 3.3; Ovid Amores 1.1). Though the device goes back to Callimachus, who declined to treat the hackneyed themes of mythology, the "‘Augustan poets ... give this a completely new twist,"’ professing that their talents are insufficient for "‘the great affairs of contemporary Roman history and, in particular, the deeds of Augustus"’ (Williams (1968): 46-47; cf. Cameron (1995): 454-83). Propertius finally lent his voice in support of the regime (4.6), while Tibullus squared the circle by commending the peace which Augustus had made possible as the condition for the harmonious relationship between lovers (1.7, 1.10). The extreme case was Ovid, who was punished with exile for the licentious character of his early poems; not his divinization of Julius Caesar in the Metamorphoses, nor his half-finished poem on Rome's sacred calendar, nor again his tearful verse epistles to infuential friends and acquaintances (of whose loyalty he often despaired) sufficed to have the sentence repealed (cf. Grebe 1998).
Apart, perhaps, from Ovid, the coin in which these patrons exerted their pressure on the poets was not direct coercion, nor again the overt purchase of their services, just as the poetry they demanded or inspired was not mere flattery or propaganda. The ties of friendship on which patronage rested entailed subtler forms of commerce, more analogous to the exchange of gifts than to hired labor [(Bowditch (2001)]. These poets wrote for an elite public, and their aim was not so much to doctor history as to articulate a vision of the principate in which they and their peers might believe. It is here that the modern "‘conceptual separation of 'literature' and 'politics'"‘ (Kennedy (1992): 37) is most misleading’.
They will not technically have been clients of their literary benefactors, but they too adapted themselves to the pre-eminent role of the emperor and his court in all aspects of public and cultural life. This was an unprecedented situation in the Roman world.
Augustus and his ministers had a political and social program, vague and variable though it may have been, and enlisting the support of poets and other artists was instrumental to it. This is not to say, of course, that hack writers were commissioned to celebrate the regime by some would-be ministry of propaganda. The partisan character of Virgil's and Horace's poetry surely contributes to its complexity and worth, whether or not one takes the view that their praise of the regime was laced with undertones of criticism (cf. Putnam 19*; Fowler 1995). But the emperor and his men did not hesitate to suggest subjects to the poets who had become their familiars, and to put some pressure on them to support in their verses the values and goals promoted by the state. In this context, a new sub-genre of Latin poetry came into being: the recusatio, or "refusal," in which a poet protested his incapacity to write epic eulogies of Augustus' achievements in war and peace in the manner of Virgil's Aeneid (exx. *; check chapter in Alan Cameron on Callimachus). Though the device goes back to Callimachus' Aitia, who declined to treat the hackneyed themes of mythology, the "Augustan poets ... give this a completely new twist," professing that their talents are insufficient for "the great affairs of contemporary Roman history and, in particular, the deeds of Augustus" (Williams 1968: 46-47). While poets whose aptitude lay rather in personal themes, above all erotic love and its vicissitudes, were given ample latitude to explore their sentiments in elegiac verse, and even to point up the tension or outright contradiction between servitude to a mistress and service to the state (Tibullus 1.1.1-6, Propertius 2.7), there were nevertheless limits to this freedom. Propertius, in the fourth book of his elegies, reined in the defiant posture he had adopted earlier, and lent his voice to the support of the regime (4.6); Tibullus squared the circle by commending the peace which Augustus' principate had made possible as the condition for the harmonious relationship between lovers (1.7, 1.10). The extreme case was Ovid, who was punished for the licentious and anti-civic character of his early poems by exile to a remote town on the Black Sea; not his divinization of Julius Caesar in the Metamorphoses, nor his half-finished poem on Rome's sacred calendar, nor again his tearful verse epistles to infuential friends and acquaintances (of whose loyalty he often despaired) sufficed to have this dire sentence repealed (cf. Grebe *).
How did a poet gain access to the privileged literary circles in Augustus' court? In Horace's case, we have a description from his own pen (Satires 1.6.45-64):
I now come back to myself, son of a freedman father, whom they all run down as son of a freedman father, nowadays because I'm an associate of yours, Maecenas, but formerly because a Roman legion was under my command as tribune. There's a difference between the two, because it wouldn't be justified for anyone, as it might peraps be in the case of the office, to grudge me your friendship as well, especially when you're careful to adopt those who deserve it and are above unscrupulous self-seeking. I couldn't say that I was lucky in that it was an accident which allotted you to me as a friend, because it was certainly not chance that set you in my path; some time ago the good Virgil and after him Varius told you what I was. When I came face to face, I gulped out a few words, because tongue-tied shyness stopped me speaking out further, and told you not that I was the son of a distinguished father, not that I rode round my country estates on a Tarentine nag, but the facts about myself. Your reply, after your fashion, was brief; I left, and nine months later you called me back and bade me be numbered amongst your friends. I consider it a great distinction to have found favour with you -- who can tell the honourable from the base -- not because of an eminent father but because of integrity of life and character (trans. Brown 1995: 65).
It has been argued that Maecenas literally inscribed Horace's name in a list of welcome visitors, and that admission to this circle was no more a matter of affection than achieving membership in an exclusive club. Brown (1995: 156) comments on the term amicus in line 50: "amicus is here also appropriate in its technical application to either party in the patron/client relationship." In my view, there can be no doubt that the relationship obtaining between Horace and Maecenas, like that between himself and his fellow poets, was or at least soon became one of genuine friendship. Horace's own poems indicate the quality of the bond, as in his description of the trip he took with Maecenas and others to Brindisi (Satires 1.5.31-34, 39-48):
Meanwhile Maecenas and Cocceius arrive and together with them Fonteius Capito, a character of tailored perfection, second to none in his friendship with Antony. Fundi, with Aufidius Luscus as praetor, we were thankful to leave.... The next day's dawn was easily the most welcome, because at Sinuessa Plotius, Varius and Virgil met us -- no fairer spirits has the earth produced, and no one's attachment to them is closer than mine. How we embraced and how great was our joy! While I'm in my right mind, there's nothing I'd compare with the pleasure of friendship. The lodge which lies next to the Campanian bridge gave us shelter, the suppliers, as they're obliged, fuel and salt. Maecenas went off for recreation, Virgil and I for a siesta (trans. Brown 1995: 55-57).
Some critics have seen a difference in tone between the formality of Horace's relation to the political grandees and the warmth he expresses in respect to his fellow poets (Estafanía 1994, citing Fedeli 19*: 17). But Estafanía (1994: 9) is certainly right that Horace's "friendship [with Maecenas] soon transcended a relation of clientship and was transformed into a mutual and sincere affection." When Horace came to publishing his Odes, it is significant that the first three of Book 1 were so arranged as to address in turn Maecenas, Augustus, and Virgil.
Friendship as a theme is pervasive in Horace's verse, as one might expect of an adherent of Epicureanism, the philosophical school that most prized this bond (for the attitude of Roman Epicureans to friendship, cf. Cicero De finibus 1.20.65; De officiis 1.66-70). But it is a kind of friendship predicated on autonomy and self-sufficiency. In a letter almost certainly addressed to his fellow poet Albius Tibullus, Horace writes (Epistles 1.4.1-2, 12-16):
Albius, you were a fair judge of my "conversations."
What are you doing, I wonder, in your native haunts at Pedum...?
In a world torn by hope and worry, dread and anger,
imagine every day that dawns is the last you'll see;
the hour you never hoped for will prove a happy surprise.
Come and see me when you want a laugh. I'm fat and sleek,
in prime condition, a porker from Epicurus' herd
(trans. Rudd 1979: 138).
Horace projects a life of ease, which he invites his friend to share (cf. Odes 2.18). Such freedom could be compromised precisely by the connections that were necessary to secure political advancement, as Horace warns a young man aspiring to a such a career: "Cultivating a powerful friend seems nice to those who have not experienced it; one who has fears it" (Epistles 1.18.86-7). Only when Lollius has achieved the necessary independence that Epicurean philosophy can confer will he be ready to engage in true friendships with the rich and powerful. As Mayer (1995: 291) puts it: "Lollius seemed to need advice on treading the narrow path of true independence within a hierarchical aristocracy now transforming itself into a royal court." But this is not to say that Horace favored a rude bluntness in personal relations; he was as conscious of the courtesies of friendship as Cicero was, and preferred polite discretion to brutal frankness (Satires 1.3).
Of figuresO outside the court, Gaius Asinius Pollio, who was sympathetic to Augustus' regime, also patronized good poets. He was a friend of Catullus and helped Virgil out after his properties had been confiscated in the civil war. Though Pollio was mosthimself was famous as a historian and orator, the arts properly cultivated by a man of his station, but he tooalso composed erotic poems in the Catullian manner (Virgil Eclogues 3.86: Pollio et ipse facit nova carmina) and, more surprisingly, as well as tragedies, as did Ovid, Varius, and others, though whether they were intended for the popular stage is moot. True, others in the reign of Augustus did so as well, including Ovid, Varius, and the emperor himself, but each seems to have confined his efforts to a single specimen of the genre. [chk how many tragedies Pollio composed, and of what kind.] Pollio held readings in his house, and in this perhaps anticipatinged the vogue for public and private recitals both public and private declamation in the following century.
5 : Patronage and friendship in the literature of the empire. **The age of Augustus was a high-water mark in the history of Latin literature. Clearly, whatever pressures the regime exerted on writers did not hinder literary excellence. Again, the idea that literature and politics are incompatible is a modern one, grounded in the idea of an autonomous sphere of art; even today, it is hardly a universal view. By creating a context in which figures of high social standing could act as full-time poets, without the stigma that attached to this profession in an earlier age, Augustan patronage promoted talent rather than restrict it.
AfterWith the death of Augustus, the emperor remained, or was perceived to be, the chief source of poetic patronageand of the major poets and writers who had been fostered under his aegis, the literary scene took yet another turn (see Mayer, Chapter 4 above and Gibson, Chapter 5 above).. Juvenal goes so far as to affirm that only the emperor was prepared to support poets, whereas the aristocracy had turned its back on them. Juvenal notes that Lucan was wealthy and independent (Satires 7.79-80), but Statius is treated as an impoverished poet who failed to obtain gifts, despite the enormous popularity of his Thebaid (7.82-90; cf. Nauta (2002): 3-4). In his Silvae, Statius wrote occasional poems for various members of the aristocracy, with whom he was on intimate terms (Nauta ( 2002): 193-248). Lucan, on the contrary, wrote a bold epic on the civil wars that was critical of Julius Caesar (see Hardie, Chapter 6 above); despite the inclusion of a eulogy to Nero, he was condemned to death by the emperor for his ostensible part in a conspiracy. In the hands of an aristocrat, epic was a potentially subversive genre (so too, perhaps, were the tragedies composed by Lucan's uncle, Seneca). For Juvenal, Lucan's high status is a figure for his poetic daring. Poets of lesser station, like Statius and Silius ItalicusMembers of the upper classes, including emperors themselves such as Nero and members of the imperial family like Germanicus, now felt free to exhibit their literary talents in public, composing the epics, lyric verses, and discourses that so iritated Juvenal (1.*). Writers at this social level who threatened or dipleased the emperor could find themselves in trouble, like Seneca (the tutor to Nero), his nephew Lucan, and Petronius. More subtle or accommodating writers like Silius Italicus (made consul by Nero), were poor butand Statius could thrive, however safe: conventional epic was still a client's genre. Apart from epic, Statius wrote verse for special occasions in the service of noble families, in this respect coming as close to the eighteenth-century image of patronage as any Roman writer ever did. His relationship with some of his patrons was clearly one of friendship.
Juvenal, writing under Trajan, was looking back at an age that seemed dominated by tyrannical emperors such as Tiberius, Nero, and Domitian, where writers feared to speak openly. Pliny the Younger, in In his Panegyricus on the emperor to Trajan, composed in the year 100 (when Pliny shared the consulship with Tacitus), placed an unusual the younger Pliny saw fit to emphasis onze the capacity of the new ruler's capacity for friendship (44.7, 85.5; cf. Dio of Prusa's third Oration on Kingship; Konstan 1997a)). Like Juvenal (Satire 4), Pliny was insisting on the right relationship between patron and dependent as one of amity rather than domination. Pliny belonged to the highest stratum of society. In the year of his panegyric, he was consul along with Tacitus, another writer whose talents were liberated in the freer atmosphere of the new regime. Pliny prided himself on his friendships, and his correspondence breathes a spirit of affection for his intimates (cf. ardentissime diligere, Epistles 1.14.10,; ardenter amare, 2.7.6). In the letters, friendship was "never reduced to a practical exchange of services quid pro quo"; rather, it entailed "moral congeniality (morum similitudo), reciprocal love, loyalty (fides), and practical help and support" (; de Blois (2001): 130). He Pliny himself describes to Trajan how a friendship between a superior and inferior party evolves (10.87.1):
"‘My lord [Trajan], Nymphidius Lupus served with me as chief centurion, and when I was tribune he was prefect; that is when I began to feel a warm affection for him. Afterwards, there developed a love based on the very duration of our mutual friendship."’
His The last book of Pliny's letters consists of epistles letters to Trajan, composed chiefly while he while Pliny was governor in Bithynia, ; here, he betrays an obsequious almost excessive dependency on the the judgment of the emperor's judgment, but his formal deference does not entirely smother the personal warmth that evidently obtained between the two, and while Trajan, for his part, calls him does not hesitate to address his reponse to "‘My dearest Pliny"’ (mi Secunde carissime, 10.16.1, cf. 10.21.1, 10.41.1, etc.). As a poet, Pliny limited himself to also published two books of lyric poems, in after the style of Catullus.; only a few survive, cited in Pliny's own letters, but we may be sure that none carried the sting that characterized Catullus' political barbs.
Pliny enjoyed encouraginged the literary activities of others, including Martial (cf. Watson, Chapter 14 above), whose expenses he helped defray for his trip back to his native Spain (Pliny Epistles 3.21), whose expenses he paid for a trip back to his native Spain. Martial himself was unashamedly to adopted the pose of a poor poet, economically dependent on the generosity of wealthy rich benefactors (12.3):
Quod Flacco Varioque fuit summoque Maroni
Maecenas, atavis regibus ortus eques,
Gentibus et populis, hoc te mihi, Prisce Terenti,
Fama fuisse loquax chartaque dicet anus
Tu facis ingenium, tu, si quid posse videmur;
Tu das ingenuae ius mihi pigritiae.
Macte animi, quem rarus habes, morumque tuorum,
Quos Numa, quos hilaris possit habere Cato.
Largiri, praestare, breves extendere census,
Et dare quae faciles vix tribuere dei,
Nunc licet et fas est. Sed tu sub principe duro Temporibusque malis ausus es esse bonus.
What Maecenas, a knight sprung from ancient kings [(cf. Horace Odes 1.1.1]), was to Horace and Varius and the great Virgil, loquacious talkative fame and ancient old records will declare to all races and peoples that you, Priscus Terentius, have been to me. You create inspiration for me; you make possible whatever I seem to be able to accomplish; you give me the power of leisure that belongs to a free man.... To give, to provide, to increase modest wealth and grant what gods when they are generous have scarcely bestowed, now one may do lawfully. But you, under a harsh ruler and in evil times, dared to be a good man(vv. 1-6 trans. Gold 2002: 610[??], slightly modified).
This pose on the part of a poet whoMartial traced his own literary ancestry to Catullus (10.78.16), but he does not imitate Catullus' easy interaction with the powerful, whether for good or ill. was the final reflex in the extension of poetic genre across social classes. As Barbara Gold [(2002): 591)] observes (with a little exaggeration): , "‘There is not single subject that receives more attention in Martial's epigrams than the troubled relations between amici ('friends') or patrons and their clients."’ Martial was the first poet to thematize patronage. It is not just that he not only writes for or in relation to or under a patrons; he rather, Martial makes the complexities of patronage the theme subject of a great deal much of his verse.
The role of friendship in patronage is central to Martial's thoughts. On his ascent up the Esquiline hill to visit the rich Paulus, who had already gone out for the day, Martial complains ( Patron and client, senator and humble immigrant, were now equally free to compose epigram, lyric, epic, even drama (like Seneca), and to address each other as literary comrades even as they recognized differences in station.
5.22.13-14): "‘Shall the faithful client ever be cultivating unconscionable friends? Unless you stay abed, you can be no patron of mine"’ (trans. Shackleton -Bailey vol. 2: 375). Amicus here is all but a euphemism for patron (cf. 10.19). Or again (3.36): "‘You bid me, Fabianus, to provide you with what a new, recently made friend provides you"’ (1-2), upon which Martial enumerates the services he performs, such as waiting outside his patron's house at the crack of dawn. He next protests: "‘Have I earned this over thirty Decembers, to be forever a new recruit to your friendship?"’ (7-8)? The final couplet suggests he should be granted a veteran's discharge. The point is that after so long an acquaintance, the demeaning routine of a client is inappropriate; there is thus a subtle hit at the hypocrisy of patronizing friends (cf. 3.37 on rich "‘friends"’ who get angry so as not to have to compensate their poor acquaintances; also 3.41, 2.74.6). In 3.46, however, Martial contrasts the services of a client, which he proposes sending his freedman to perform, with those of a friend, which, he says, is all that the freedman cannot perform (11-12). So too he exclaims (2.55): "‘You want to be toadied to [coli], Sextus; I wanted to love you. I must obey you: you shall be toadied to, as you order. But if I toady to you, Sextus, I shan't love you."’ Again (9.14): "‘Do you believe that this man, whom your table, your dinners have made your friend, is the soul of faithful friendship [fidae pectus amicitiae]? He loves your boar and mullets and udder and oysters, not you. If I should dine that well, he'll be my friend"’ (on the value of a true friend, cf. 9.52, 9.99, 10.44). Martial distinguishes (4.56.7) between giving unconditionally (largiri) and giving with a view to gaining or receiving in return (donare; cf. 10.11, 10.15). John Sullivan [(1991): 120]) observes that the picture of Roman patronage as a system of duties and benefits is blurred because it "‘is forced to overlap with the concept of friendship"’; but Martial is clear that the two ideas are "‘theoretically distinct"’ and may simultaneously describe his relationship to a single individual.
Sometimes Martial laments the lack of a generous Maecenas (11.3; cf. 1.107, 4.40, 8.55, 12.36); at other times he claims to be indifferent to whether his poems profit him (5.15.5-6). Most often his complaints of poverty have nothing to do with poetry at all (e.g., 12.53.1-5; cf. Holzberg ( 2002): 74-85). In all, Martial's pose is that of a gossip columnist whose livelihood depends on access to the rich and famous; that is why he needs to be invited to aristocratic dinner parties -- for material, so that he can expose their petty avarice and sexual deviance (cf. 10.4). Martial explicitly distances himself from learned Alexandrian poetry like Callimachus' Aetia, part of which his own Catullus translated (c.poem 68). Catullus too could represent himself as poor (e.g., poem c. 10), but he is the equal of the aristocrats to whom he addresses his verses. Martial, however, writes as an interloper, who must constantly seek entry to the world whose foibles he amusingly reveals. It is from this self-conscious posture that Martial teases out the values of friendship and patronage, as he adapts the traditionally haughty Roman epigram, as cultivated by poets since Catulus and Catullus, to a poor man's lampoon.
I conclude this survey of attitudes toward patrons and friends with a cynical epigram ascribed to Seneca, though in all likelihood written a century or so after the time of Martial:
"‘Live and avoid all friendships:"’ this is more true
Than just "‘avoid friendships with patrons."’
My fate bears witness: my high-ranking friend ruined me,
My humble one abandoned me. Shun the whole pack alike.
For those who had been my equals fled the crash
And abandoned the house even before it collapsed.
Go then and avoid only patrons! If you know how to live,
Live for yourself only -- for you'll die for yourself.
Check epic poetry by Furius Bibaculus and Varro of Atax; what was there social class? Also check literary career and patronage under Asinius Pollio, who wrote drama as well as history. Was Virgil doing something radical in writing epic? It was a while before successors emerged.
References
Bowditch, Phebe Lowell. 2001. Horace and the Gift Economy of Patronage. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Brown, P. Michael, ed. and trans. 1995. Horace Satires I. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
Cameron, Alan. 1995. Callimachus and his Critics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Citroni, Mario. 1995. Poesia e lettori in Roma antica: Forme della comunicazione letteraria. Rome: Editori Laterza.
David, Jean-Michel. 1992. Le patronat judiciare au dernier siècle de la républi que romaine. Rome: Ecole Française de Rome.
de Blois, Lukas. 2001. "The Political Significance of Friendship in the Letters of Pliny the Younger ." In Peachin 2001: 129-34.
Deniaux, x, Elizabeth. 1993. Clientèles et pouvoir à l'époque de Cicéron. Rome: Ecole Française de Rome.
Dougan, Thomas Wilson, ed. 1905. M. Tulli Ciceronis Tuscularum Disputationum libri quinque. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dupont, Florence. 1999. The Invention of Literature: From Greek Intoxication to the Latin Book. Trans. Janet Lloyd. Baltimore, Md. : Johns Hopkins University Press.
Estafanía, Dulce, ed. 1994. Horacio, el poeta y el hombre. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.
Estafanía, Dulce. 1994a. "Horacio, la amistad y los amigos." In Dulce 1994: 1020.
Fedeli, Paolo. 1992*. "In viaggio con Orazio da Roma a Brindisi." Aufidus 17: 37-54[??].
Fowler, D.P. 1995. "Horace and the Aesthetics of Politics." In Harrison 1995: 248-66.
Gold, Barbara K. 2002. "Accipe Divitias et Vatum Maximus Esto: Money, Poetry, Mendicancy and Patronage in Martial." In A.J. Boyle and W.J. Dominik, edd., Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (Leiden: E.J. Brill) 591-612.
Goldberg, Sander M. 1995. Epic in Republican Rome. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goldhill, S. (1999) 'Literary History without Literature: Reading Practices in the Ancient World', Substance 88: 57-89.
Goold, G. P., ed. and trans. 1983. Catullus. London: Duckworth.
Granarolo, Jean. 1973. "L'époque néotérique ou la poésie romaine d'avant-garde au dernier siècle d la République (Catullu excepté)." In Hildegard Temporini, ed., Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Vol. I.3 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter) 278-360.
Grebe, Sabine. 1998. "Ovids Tristia und Epistulae ex Ponto unter ausgewählten Aspekten des Freundschaftsthemas." In Werner Schubert, ed., Ovid: Werk und Wirkung. Festgabe für Michael von Albrecht zum 65. Geburtstag, Part 2 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang) 737-54Grebe, Sabine.
Gruen, Erich S. 1992. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
Hall, Jon. 1996. "Cicero Fam. 5.8 and Fam. 15 in the Light of Modern Politeness Theory." Antichthon 30: 19-33.
Hall, Jon. 1998. "Cicero to Lucceius (Fam. 5.12) in its Social Context: Valde Bella?" Classical Philology 93: 308-21.
Hall, Jon. 2002. "Cicero Fam. 16.21, Roman Politeness, and the Socialization of Marcus Cicero the Younger." In
Harrison, S.J., ed. 1995. Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary Celebration. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Holzberg, Niklas. 2002. Martial und das antike Epigramm. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Kennedy, Duncan F. 1992. "'Augustan' and 'Anti-Augustan': Reflections on Terms of Reference." In Anton Powell, ed., Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus (London: Bristol Classical Press) 26-58.
Konstan, David. 1997. Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Konstan, David. 1977a. "Friendship and Monarchy: Dio of Prusa's Third Oration On Kingship." Symbolae Osloenses 72: 124-43.
Konstan, David. 2002. Review of Peachin 2001. Bryn Mawr Classical Review Vol. 2002.04.29.
Krostenko, Brian A. 2001. Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leo, Friedrich. 1967 [orig. 1913]. Geschichte der römischen Literatur. Vol. 1: Die archaische Literatur. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Mayer, R.G. 1995. "Horace's Moyen de Parvenir." In Harrison 1995: 279-95.
Nauta, Ruurd R. 2002. Poetry for Patrons: Literary Communication in the Age of Domitian. Leiden: Brill.
Peachin, Michael, ed. 2001. Aspects of Friendship in the Graeco-Roman World. Portsmouth RI = Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 43.
Peachin, Michael. 2001a. "Friendship and Abuse at the Dinner Table ." In Peachin 2001: 135-44.
Putnam, Michael. 1986*. on horace odes 4Artifices of Eternity: Horace's Fourth Book of Odes. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
Raccanelli, Renata. 1998. L'amicitia nelle commedie de Plauto: Un' indagine antropologica. Bari: Edipuglia.
Rudd, Niall, trans. 1979. Horace: Satires and Epistles, Persius: Satires. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Rüpke, Jörg. 2001. "Kulturtransfer als Rekodierung: Zum literaturgeschichtlichen und sozialen Ort der frühen römischen Epik." In Jörg Rüpke, ed., Von Göttern und Menschen erzählen: Formkonstanzen und Funktionswandel vormoderner Epik (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag) 42-64.
Sciarrino, Enrica. ms. "Putting Cato the Censor's Origines in its Place."
Sullivan, J.P. 1991. Martial: The Unexpected Classic. A Literary and Historical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, Gordon. 1968. Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Williams, Gordon. 1995. "'Libertino Patre Natus': True or False?" In Harrison 1995: 296-313.
[Decline of clientship: Rouland 1979; Brunt 1988: 382-442; patronus remains the term for a legal advocate, who might also be a friend: e.g. Tacitus Dialogus 9.4; Statius Silv. 4.5.50-2.; patronage as asymmetrical relationship: Saller 1989: 49; cf. Saller 1982, 8-11; Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984, 2; exploitation: Millett 1989: 16; patronage in general: Wolf 1966: 16; contrast with Athens: Strauss 1986, 22-3; Millett 1989, 16; Gallant 1991: 145; status under the principate: Brunt 1988: 440. Enormous power: Gold 1987: 40, 71, 104; Strauss 1986: 22.]
stephen.harrison@ccc.ox.ac.uk
Guide to Further Reading
In treating patronage and friendship, this chapter brings together two themes that are in reality distinct, though related. Konstan (1997) provides a survey of ancient friendship in general, and argues that it was conceived as a bond based on mutual affection rather than obligation. This view has not won universal acceptance; for criticism of it, see (among others) the essays in Peachin (2001), with the review by Konstan (2002). For friendship as a political relationship in Rome, see the chapter on amicitia in Brunt (1988).
Patronage is a different kind of relationship, based on the reciprocal obligation between a superior and inferior party. At an early stage, the dependency of clients upon their patrons was probably compulsory, but in the historical period it was largely customary; for the evolution, see Deniaux (1993), and for the special sense of patron as legal counsellor, David (1992). The best introduction to Roman patronage is Saller (1989); see also Saller (1982), White (1993).
Literary patronage in the modern sense is a distinct issue; for general discussion, see Gold (1987) (on Greece and Rome). Bowditch (2001) discusses Horace's relationship to his imperial patrons; White (1993) treats patronage in the Augustan period generally; while White (1978) and Nauta (2002) provide a detailed account of patronage in the early imperial period, with special attention to Statius and Martial.
A further issue is the role of friendship within poetry; for friendship in Plautus' comedies, see Raccanelli (1998), who offers a balanced discussion of affection and duty in Roman friendship generally; for Horace and his friends, see Kilpatrick (1986); and for Pliny, de Blois (2001).
How patronage and friendship interacted remains a disputed question. Were both characterized more by obligation than by affection, or were they radically distinct? If so, could patron and client be true friends? The above studies indicate the nature of the problem, but work remains to be done.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- friendship activity sheets free printables
- friendship poems from the heart
- friendship poems that make you cry
- friendship worksheets printable for kids
- friendship poems to a special friend
- free friendship worksheets
- poems on friendship and life
- difference between friendship and dating
- songs about friendship and memories
- cute and short friendship quotes
- friendship quotes and sayings
- inspirational friendship quotes and sayings