Making History Personal: Constantine Cavafy and the Rise of Rome

Frier, “Making History Personal,” page 2
scholarship. In “Caesarion” (1918), 4 for instance, he casually mentions “a collection / of Ptole-
maic inscriptions” that he was reading one night “[i]n part to ascertain a certain date / and in part
to while away the time.” 5
True, Cavafy was no historian in the strict sense. He had little or no interest in history’s
elaborate, overdetermined tapestry of causes, nor even for probing much behind the story told in
6
his sources. He was not a crafter of master narratives. But neither was he a mere dabbler.
There is good evidence, for instance, that he deliberately sought historical accuracy, or at least
verisimilitude, even in small details: in January, 189, at the Macedonian capital Pella, a vase of
roses on Philip V’s dice table (“The Battle of Magnesia,” 1913); or the pink silk garment worn
by a Ptolemaic king in 34 BCE (“Alexandrian Kings,” 1912). 7
To judge from his poems, Cavafy cared deeply, albeit in his own fashion, about history.
The question is, why?
Furthermore, when Cavafy did
invent—and many of his characters and anecdotes are, of course, free found in their entirety or in
large part—he did so in a manner that renders them broadly plausible, and usually so even to
“experts.”
8
Surely at least a portion of the answer, and doubtless the largest portion,
was provided by Edmund Keeley, the great Cavafy scholar, who observed that Cavafy used his-
tory in order to create his own very distinctive poetic voice:
4
All translations in this article come from Mendelsohn, Collected Poems (2009) and Unfinished Poems (2009).
The dates of composition and publication are also taken from these two books, and ultimately from the Cavafy publications
by George Savidis and Renata Lavignini. Following the normal conventions for Cavafy, I have accepted
the division of his work into four broad groups: published (154 poems), unpublished (74), repudiated (published but
later withdrawn) (27), and unfinished (30). However, this division is only approximate, given Cavafy’s eccentric
notions about publication. On Mendelsohn’s translation, see Kalogeris, “Sensuous Archaism” (2009).
5
On the book, see below. Cavafy’s familiarity with ancient numismatics is documented in Geroulanos et al.,
Münzen und Poesie (2006), esp. 30-39; but, as it emerges, some of the coins that he refers to are his own poetic inventions,
ibid. 25. See also Franke, “Katalog” (2007). On Cavafy’s use of coins for metapoetic purposes, see Roilos,
Economics (2009) 172-195.
6
Thus, he tends rather unreflectively to accept the view (which goes back to Polybius) that after 200 BCE Roman
imperialism was the prime motivating force in the conquest of the Mediterranean—a view still dominant
among scholars, see, e.g., Habicht in Astin et al., CAH 2 8 (1990) 324-387, esp. 382-387. Revisionist views have
deemphasized Roman aggressiveness; see, e.g., Gruen, Hellenistic World (1984); Eckstein, Mediterranean Anarchy
(2006).
7
Liddell, Cavafy (1974) 123-124, with other examples; Liddell also notes that Cavafy “was not open to correction
as a true scholar must be, but clung obstinately to an idea …” Still, his love of historical detail emerges clearly
enough in his (largely critical) notes on Gibbon’s Decline and Fall: Haas, “Reading Notes” (1982).
8
One answer to this question was given by Cavafy himself: the Hellenistic period appealed to him because it “
is more immoral, more free, and it allows me to move my personae as I wish.” Malanos, Ποιητής (1957) 77, 148,
quoted by Anton, Poetry and Poetics (1995) 10. But as Anton goes on to observe, this explanation is at best partial.