Thus we can rightly call the century of Octavius fortuitous. I believe it is more advantageous<hr>
for the emperor to be loved by Virgil, Horace, Livy, and the esteemed Maecenas than to be feared by all the earth. The fear that would make him formidable to all nations would only ensure their obedience as long as he lived. But the praise from Virgil and Horace will make him memorable through all the centuries that will follow ours.<hr>
       Certainly, Maecenas, if all kings were driven by desire and glory, they should contemplate winning the affection of those whom the gods have chosen to transmit this glory. Through history and poetry, they can achieve the immortalization of their names and aspire to live beyond their death, defying the ravages of time and destiny. But between these two paths to eternity, the poem seems to have the unique benefit of deifying men. It embodies celestial and divine elements. The fire that animates it enlightens and purifies all those who are praised by it. Without distorting the truth, it forgives flaws and highlights the good qualities with sincere passion. History offers a naked view of virtue, but poetry adorns it with its most beautiful trinkets. History is so scrupulous it doesn’t dare to determine anything - it only narrates events without passing judgment. However, poetry judges everything. It glorifies, condemns, punishes, rewards, crowns and chastises – it illuminates or overshadows the life of the ones it talks about. To sum up, it encompasses the features of history and rhetoric, and it spreads this immortal glory which is the most noble reward of all heroic deeds.<hr>
       Besides, the historian covers a myriad of topics, making it virtually unavoidable that the prince's reign – the subject of his chronicle – would get entangled with the lives of his subjects. His pen serves all the criminals of this time as much as the notable characters. He doesn't have the freedom to choose his topic, he has to take what time and chance give him. The prince and his subjects are so intermingled that one can hardly distinguish them, except in the armies, public places, and in the mobs. On the contrary, the poet separates the prince from his people. He selects his subject and material, trails his hero all the way to his grave, talking only about what he pleases and addressing challenges only when he deems them useful. Thus the historian's goal is just the truth, while the poet's is the glory and immortality of his hero. You can see that I do agree with you and that my conversations with Octavius and Maecenas have given me enough knowledge about poetry to discuss it reasonably. Having said that, I can confidently assert that kings should put in all their effort to win the favor of poets, and that Octavius owes you more for the friendly relationship with Horace and Virgil than for your persuading him not to relinquish his power. Surely, Alexander was right to envy Achilles's fate, for he enjoyed the privilege of having Homer to perpetuate his glory. But Octavius has no reason to complain about his time for the gods have blessed him with friends like Virgil, Horace and Maecenas.<hr>
<hr>
<hr>
<hr>
                                                    121<hr>