Augustan Receptions of Betrayal in the Neo-Latin Encomiastic Poetry of Renaissance Italy

In the years leading up to his becoming the first emperor of Rome, Augustus was careful to maintain his image of the modest princeps – the embodiment of (Republican) civic virtus – as he aggregated his many public duties and powers, while also ensuring a dynastical continuity of power for his successors and asserting himself as imperator. The Augustan poets, then, favourably portrayed him as the herald of the Pax Augusta and an unprecedented aurea saecula for the Roman people.
Long after the fall of Rome, in Renaissance Italy, its many city-states attempted to assert themselves as the true heir of the Roman Empire. Encomiastic poetry of the leaders and rulers of the Republic of Florence, the Duchy of Milan, and even the papal court, abounds with receptions of Augustus as the ideal ruler. Yet his overall image is far from one-sided; Leonardo Bruni (1370-1444) casts him as an utterly vicious traitor and despot in his Historiae Florentini populi, even going so far as to claim that Rome was doomed to fall because of its emperors.
This paper investigates the different perspectives of Augustus’s rule in the Neo-Latin poetry of Renaissance Italy, and asks how the image of the Roman Emperor was made to fit the volatile, new political landscape in which the city-states found themselves. The appropriation of Augustus was not unproblematic; why and how could Bruni frame the Emperor as a traitor of all Republican virtue, while Naldo Naldi (1439-1513), a poet under the Florentine Republic all the same, used him to exemplify the ideal Republican politician in his Elegies? I argue that both authors specifically employ betrayal narratives – for example, Augustus’s purported betrayal of Roman civic virtues – to provide a morally compelling foundation for their contributions to the civic debate. This approach casts a new light on Renaissance receptions of Augustus; far from simply casting the Emperor as the hero or villain of Antiquity, the betrayal lens equipped humanist authors with a significantly more nuanced vantage point, suited for the complex debates in which they situated themselves.

Treasonous Adultery in Augustan Rome

Augustus promoted himself as the one who brought peace, political stability and the restoration of the republic. While the latter claim may seem unjustified considering his sole rule, a majority of republican institutions remained in place, supporting his narrative. However, restoration of the republic could refer not only to the political organization, but also to its moral and social foundations. It was widely believed, at least among the elites, that the republic was long in a state of moral decay and degradation of character. We find mentions of this as early as Polybius, writing around 150 BC. These were connected not only to the perceived opulence and greed of the contemporary generations, but also to personal infidelity. In his efforts to restore the republic, Augustus introduced a series of laws regulating morality and private life, such as the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis of approximately 18 BC. This legislation transformed adultery from a private concern to a public crime that was to be prosecuted in court. Tacitus, critical of this development, even mentions that the princeps put adultery on the same level as treason through exiling the adulterers and taking a part of their property. While there is abundant literature on both treason and adultery in Rome, so far there is no work exploring the kind of connection that can be made between the two. In this paper, I argue that adultery was transformed into a crime as part of restoring the republic, since to bring back Rome’s past successes, the populace itself needed regulation in line with the lost ideals of the republic. An adulteress did not just betray the trust of her partner, she posed a threat to the whole community by illicitness and by threatening the clear patrilineal descent and inheritance of property. 

Accusations of Betrayal in Narrative Accounts of the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204)

Two narrative strands dominate the historiography of the Fourth Crusade, one justifying and the other condemning the conquest of Constantinople. Both perspectives originated in contemporary Latin and Greek sources and were inherited by modern Crusader and Byzantine Studies, respectively. Shared between these entrenched twin narratives is the pervasive theme of betrayal, which continues to generate enduring fascination as well as heated debate. Why did the crusaders attack a Christian city? Who was the betrayer, who the betrayed? The sources abound with accusations and though many have been disproven, the debate in modern scholarship on morality and motivations continues unabated. Consensus exists mainly on one point: that the capture of Constantinople cemented an irreconcilable divide between east and west. Here, then, is the ‘corrosive’ effect of betrayal on society.

Yet these grand narratives of clashing civilisations have only made the Fourth Crusade more intractable as a historiographical problem. To better understand its confusing complexity this paper proposes a different perspective. Instead of trying to determine who betrayed whom, we should ask why accusations of betrayal were made to begin with. The anonymously written Devastatio Constantinopolitana offers an excellent case study. Composed by a member of the rank-and-file, the text accuses the crusade’s leaders of betraying the ‘common people’ and exploiting them for their own gain. Today, the Devastatio is used mainly for reconstructing chronology while its unique perspective has received little attention. By drawing on theory on narrative and emplotment in historiography, I aim to show that accusations of betrayal can serve to make sense of and justify one's own actions. The Devastatio's anonymous writer reframed the narrative in terms of betrayer and betrayed to reject personal responsibility and ease moral discomfort. For modern scholars, such simplifications have, paradoxically, complicated the narrative.

Betraying God: Spiritual Dissent and Mysticism in the Context of Margery Kempe and Late Medieval England

Heresy, and the subsequent fear it provoked, came to be seen as an attack on the moral hierarchy of medieval society and was perceived as a form of betrayal akin to treason. In the introductory chapter of her edited volume on treason, Larissa Tracy points out that although the legal definition of treason is susceptible to change, its underlying moral concept is less malleable. She promotes a definition of betrayal as a breach of trust that extends from the political to the personal. Heresy, understood as a rejection of the authority of the Church, constituted a form of betrayal against God, and consequently society. The involvement of secular interrogators in the prosecution and judgment of religious dissident communities highlights the conflation of heresy as both a sin and a crime. This environment provides fertile ground for the discussion of unorthodox religious attitudes and the threat to the fabric of society posed by heretical accusations and religious dissidence. This paper will delve into the works of fourteenth-century English mystics, which—building on Larissa Tracy’s framework—could in some instances function as betrayals of institutionalized religion. English mystics like Margery Kempe and her respective literary work, The Book of Margery Kempe, constitute the focus of this paper. Despite extensive scholarship, I reframe the research questions surrounding this text to not only consider the gender aspect of this figure in the male-dominated religious realm, but also to illustrate, from the standpoint of treason and betrayal, the contested literary space she creates—where theological deviance is concurrently manifested and concealed. I contend that her outward compliance with orthodox devotion and performative loyalty to Christian doctrine disguise the fact that the mystic experience undermines clerical mediation and institutionalized truth. Margery Kempe’s mistaken reputation as a Lollard and her vernacular religious expression  during a period of theological turmoil in England position her as a figure who blurred the boundary between accepted spiritual orthodoxy and dissidence. Her emphasis on affective piety constitutes a transgressive performance that invites accusations of heresy. However, her textual ambiguity, rhetorical strategies, and humility prevent such allegations from being unequivocal. The way that Margery Kempe, as a writer more than as a historical subject, distinctively navigated mysticism, authorial suppression, and adopted caution regarding teaching and preaching demonstrates that instances of heretical persecution provoked the same pervasive cultural anxieties characteristic of more explicitly political acts of treason. By reading the autobiographical and theological work of this medieval mystic, I consider the intersection of revelatory writing and gender in the milieu of late medieval English dissidence; nevertheless, more specifically, I seek to reinvigorate the consideration of literary consciousness as a means of unveiling medieval expectations regarding theological strictures and religious nonconformity.

Gendered Differences in Adultery in Secular English Literature

From penitentials to Guinevere, adultery was an ever present concern in medieval daily lives and literature despite the biblical commandant condemning it. Adultery, the crime of having a sexual relationship with anyone other than one’s own spouse, was illegal under canon law, socially taboo, and unforgivable for both men and women.

However, there exists very little extant secular fiction that is focused on adultery where the male adulterer is married; the majority of fictional material on adultery instead focuses on the married adulteress. This is in stark contrast with the extant legal and ecclesiastic material regarding adultery, in which adultery seems to be a sin that disproportionately favors married men. This disparity between literature and instruction has so far remained underexplored, as most scholarship instead focuses on the in-text effects of adultery.

This paper explores the over-representation of female adultery in medieval literature, through a study of Marie de France’s lais that feature adultery: Equitan, Bisclavret, Yönec, Laüstic, Milun, and Chevrefoil. It aims to make sense of this over-representation through an examination of the rhetoric surrounding these representations of adultery. It will answer the question of what images of men and women are painted by this rhetoric, and what these images aim to achieve, in order to better understand gender dynamics in medieval relationships. This examination will be conducted through a comparison between the rhetoric presented in these secular works of fiction and the attitudes towards men, women, relationships, and adultery that can be found in religious instructional literature, namely in penitentials, with a focus on Robert Manning’s Handelyg Synne.

A Parody on Piety: Religious Betrayal in Louwtje van Zevenhuizen

Gerrit van Spaan’s Het koddig en vermakelijk leven van Louwtje van Zevenhuizen, of het schermschool der huislieden (1700–1702) is a picaresque comedy that blends satire, farce, and moral commentary. It follows the adventures of Louwtje, a peasant navigating a world marked by deception and moral decay. Van Spaan, a Rotterdam-based author, published the work in multiple parts aimed at a bourgeois readership. Although records of its reception are scarce, its publication context and tone suggest it functioned both as entertainment and ideological commentary.
A central theme is the satirical portrayal of the Catholic clergy as hypocritical, lascivious, and corrupt, violating their vows and masking this behind a façade of piety. This paper argues that Van Spaan’s portrayal of Catholicism in Louwtje van Zevenhuizen functions as more than superficial comedy. Van Spaan’s satire also functions as a response to perceived internal threats, reflecting a deeper ideological critique by constructing Catholicism as a form of ideological treason. In this analysis, betrayal serves as a central conceptual lens. By using exaggeration and ridicule, Van Spaan constructs Catholicism not merely as religious deviance, but as ideological treason, framing it as an internal threat to social and religious cohesion.
Situating Louwtje van Zevenhuizen within current debates about the function of comic genres, this study challenges the notion that farces were purely for amusement or moral instruction. By examining betrayal as a central motif, it shows how early modern satire used humor to reflect broader anxieties about loyalty, morality, and religious identity, while also shaping public opinion. This analysis contributes to a deeper understanding of how farces and picaresque narratives engaged with ideological conflict in the early eighteenth-century Dutch Republic, particularly in relation to religion and social cohesion.

Broken Bonds: Betrayal, Love, and Royalty in Khosrow and Shirin

In Khosrow and Shirin, Nezami Ganjavi (c. 1141-1209) offers a critical portrayal of romantic love, challenging its conventional association with trust, loyalty, and honour. Rather than presenting love as an idealized or sacred bond, the narrative exposes it as a fragile and volatile connection, easily fractured by ambition, deceit, and personal weakness.
At the heart of this analysis is Khosrow’s repeated betrayal of Shirin’s trust, especially through his infidelity and disingenuous behaviour. These acts are not treated as isolated moral failures, but as symptoms of deeper ethical instability in the world Nezami depicts. Khosrow's betrayals reveal how love, far from being a stable refuge, is constantly vulnerable to corruption by desire, pride, and political ambition. Love in Khosrow and Shirin is not inherently redemptive or secure, but rather it is something that must be earned and sustained through moral discipline, something Khosrow repeatedly fails to do.
Equally important is Shirin’s response to these betrayals. Her unwavering self-respect and emotional restraint creates a powerful counterpoint to Khosrow’s inconsistency. She is not a passive romantic heroine. Her character introduces a compelling tension between devotion and self-preservation, challenging the notion that love requires unconditional submission.
By drawing on philosophical and literary theories of trust and betrayal, particularly those of Judith Shklar, Peter J. Chelkowski, and A.A. Seyed-Gohrab,and especially that of Larrisa Tracy,  this paper argues that Nezami’s Khosrow and Shirin is not simply a romance, but a critique of the hazardous nature of love. Through its exploration of betrayal, the epic exposes the instability of trust and the emotional costs of disloyalty, ultimately questioning whether true love can survive in a world shaped by power, deception, and moral compromise.

Treating Traitors: Necropolitics and the Punishment of Treason and Impiety in Ancient Attica

Arguably the most well-known case on the refusal of burial rites in the ancient world is presented in Sophocles’ Antigone. This tragedy focuses on Antigone’s mission to bury her brother’s corpse, as he has been denied burial due to his treason against Thebes. Her eventual success in the burial of her brother ends in her execution, which leads to divine anger aimed at the king who denied the burial. Although this divine anger implies that Antigone’s act was correct, the refusal of burial for treason was a common punishment in ancient Attica.
This refusal of burial is part of the concept of necropolitics, a term first coined by Achille Mbembe. This term describes the politicisation of death and the ways in which power can dictate how a person lives or dies. In the case of treason, necropolitics were used to punish treason and to dictate where and if a person could be buried. A further instance in which these necropolitics were enacted was in cases of impiety, or asebeia. Oftentimes these charges were met with similar punishments as treason, and in discussion of laws, crimes of treason and asebeia are discussed next to each other. For example, Xenophon’s Hellenica discusses the prohibition of burial in Attica for both temple-robbers and traitors (Xen.Hell.1.7.22.).
Charges of impiety were sometimes also combined with charges of treason, showing a further interaction between these concepts. Using the speech Against Leocrates, a prosecution in which treason is combined with impiety, in combination with various laws involving necropolitics, I argue that concepts of treason and impiety are closely connected in classical Greek thought. I especially focus on sources that describe or come from classical Athens. Furthermore, I argue that concepts of treason and impiety are held together by the experience of betrayal. While treason is a betrayal of the state, impiety is a betrayal of the gods. With this argument, I not only contribute to the relative silence on the interconnectedness of these two concepts, but I also add to the broader discussion on the embeddedness of Greek religion.