Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Virgil - Aeneid
>
Aeneid Book 11
date
newest »
newest »
Thomas wrote: "The body of Pallas is sent back to Evander wrapped in one of the robes of Dido. Is this significant?"
No spoilers. Long. (view spoiler)
Short answer: Yes. It links the broken vow made to Evander with the broken vows Aeneis made to Dido. Vow and pledges cannot change fate.
No spoilers. Long. (view spoiler)
Short answer: Yes. It links the broken vow made to Evander with the broken vows Aeneis made to Dido. Vow and pledges cannot change fate.
Adelle wrote: "Short answer: Yes. It links the broken vow made to Evander with the broken vows Aeneis made to Dido. Vow and pledges cannot change fate. "And he also loved Pallas, who was a kind of surrogate son. Losing Pallas is a tragic sacrifice, just as leaving and losing Dido was. I like your notes on Dido -- it's fitting that the image of Dido echoes throughout the poem.
I keep wondering if Vergil is asking, sotto voce, whether the pain of the sacrifice is worth it or not. Drances reminds me a little of Thersites in the Iliad, but Drances makes a better argument -- what do the Latins gain by this war? Why not make peace, give the Trojans a bit of land to call home, and be done with the bloodshed? Peace is not an option for Aeneas, but the way Vergil tells the story it is a question that the reader is bound to ask: what price victory?
Yes,he also loved Pallas.
It seems to me that Pallas--like Dido---dies because of the duty that Aeneis believes he owes to Ascanius---though, really, it's not a duty directly to Ascanius...more of a duty to the gods who have "given" to Aeneis the mission of establishing Ascanius in Italy.
But listen, maybe it's just my own perception, but I got the sense that Aeneis has a more emotional connection with Pallas than with Ascanius.
I realize that Aeneis is a man who feels deeply--who weeps and then closes the door on those feelings because he must in order to attain his objective... I'm postive that Aeneis would have wept, too, had Ascanius been killed.
In a way, I think, the death of Ascanius would have freed Aeneis. The absolute collapse of his life mission---tragic though it would have been--would have presented him with circumstances in which he would have had to rethink his goals...his purpose...possibly his values.
But Pallas, who as you say was almost a substitute for Ascanius...perhaps that is why Aeneis feels such a connection with him...
It is almost too much for Aeneis. Just how much do the gods require him to sacrifice!!! How much! How much! And the culmination of all the sacrifices of Aeneis...the trials and tribulatons....thst Aenis has endured...and he has always put on a good face for his men even when he was feeling despair in his heart....and which he has through self-control not allowed himself to really feel... I think he feels now with the death of Pallas...a death which no one had told him about---not his mother...not his father...not a hint from the gods. And Aeneis loses it. He becomes a killing machine...not with the goal of winning this battle and establshing a home for his Trojans there in Italy...but simply with the goal of killing as many Italians as he can.
And I have to wonder whether he might not have gone too far? Without such slaughter, without so many more additional wounds (see first page of The Aenied), might not Aeneis and Latinius and Turnus have been able to come to some sort of negotiated peace?
It seems to me that Pallas--like Dido---dies because of the duty that Aeneis believes he owes to Ascanius---though, really, it's not a duty directly to Ascanius...more of a duty to the gods who have "given" to Aeneis the mission of establishing Ascanius in Italy.
But listen, maybe it's just my own perception, but I got the sense that Aeneis has a more emotional connection with Pallas than with Ascanius.
I realize that Aeneis is a man who feels deeply--who weeps and then closes the door on those feelings because he must in order to attain his objective... I'm postive that Aeneis would have wept, too, had Ascanius been killed.
In a way, I think, the death of Ascanius would have freed Aeneis. The absolute collapse of his life mission---tragic though it would have been--would have presented him with circumstances in which he would have had to rethink his goals...his purpose...possibly his values.
But Pallas, who as you say was almost a substitute for Ascanius...perhaps that is why Aeneis feels such a connection with him...
It is almost too much for Aeneis. Just how much do the gods require him to sacrifice!!! How much! How much! And the culmination of all the sacrifices of Aeneis...the trials and tribulatons....thst Aenis has endured...and he has always put on a good face for his men even when he was feeling despair in his heart....and which he has through self-control not allowed himself to really feel... I think he feels now with the death of Pallas...a death which no one had told him about---not his mother...not his father...not a hint from the gods. And Aeneis loses it. He becomes a killing machine...not with the goal of winning this battle and establshing a home for his Trojans there in Italy...but simply with the goal of killing as many Italians as he can.
And I have to wonder whether he might not have gone too far? Without such slaughter, without so many more additional wounds (see first page of The Aenied), might not Aeneis and Latinius and Turnus have been able to come to some sort of negotiated peace?
Thomas wrote: I keep wondering if Vergil is asking, sotto voce, whether the pain of the sacrifice is worth it or not. Drances reminds me a little of Thersites in the Iliad, but Drances makes a better argument -- what do the Latins gain by this war? Why not make peace, give the Trojans a bit of land to call home, and be done with the bloodshed? Peace is not an option for Aeneas, but the way Vergil tells the story it is a question that the reader is bound to ask: what price victory?"
Great paragraph. I will have to re-read the section with Drances. You bring up an intriquing ccomparison with Thersites. I suppose I should review that section as well.
For me...I have a very pestimisic outlook on The Aeneid. I think, mmm, Virgil had no way of knowing that the reign of Augustus would actually bring a long period of lasting peace (for the Romans).
And, as Barbara has also touched on, sigh, Virgil opens with those emotional wounds of Juno and her eternal anger....I've jotted "wound" in the margins every time I see the word and I would it's been used several score times.
So, I think, Virgil contemplates mankind. Always with wounds and anger. Virgil, I suspect, believes that mankind will never change..always there will be wounds and anger. The best that can be hoped for is that Augusus can IMPOSE peace through strength of arms...and that the Roman people can learn self-ccntrol ... like Aeneis often exhibited ...Aeneis...a humanly flawed man...if Aeneis can do...flawed Romans can understand that they can do it too.
But bottom line, I keep hearing the words of Venus to Aeneis. Venus is HIS MOTHER. And she's a GODDESS. So I would think she would want the best for her son and that she would have some power to see that he gets what is best---to the degree that it is possible.
And what does she tell him he has going for him?
She tells him to stop complaining and tells him that he's still alive.
Fitz 1.533:
"Whoever you are"
[This is her SON...but Venus speaks broadly here}
Whoever you are, I doubt Heaven is unfriendly
To you" [and again...this COULD BE a non-god statement...that there is doubt that Heaven is unfriendly to Aeneis...because there is doubt that there is a Heaven ... therefore there is no Heaven against Aeneis]... as you still breathe life-giving air
On your approach to the Tyrian town."
I'm thinking that that is Virgil's bottom line, that whoever you are...if you are alive, you are alive. Stop complaining and get about the business of living; determine your goals [such as Aeneis has] and then put in the effort to achieve them.
Over and over Virgil has men making the effort...pulling their hearts out...adjusting sails... And the men and women who are shades... life is over for them...
Do it now, suggests Virgil, "as you still breathe life-giving air."
Great paragraph. I will have to re-read the section with Drances. You bring up an intriquing ccomparison with Thersites. I suppose I should review that section as well.
For me...I have a very pestimisic outlook on The Aeneid. I think, mmm, Virgil had no way of knowing that the reign of Augustus would actually bring a long period of lasting peace (for the Romans).
And, as Barbara has also touched on, sigh, Virgil opens with those emotional wounds of Juno and her eternal anger....I've jotted "wound" in the margins every time I see the word and I would it's been used several score times.
So, I think, Virgil contemplates mankind. Always with wounds and anger. Virgil, I suspect, believes that mankind will never change..always there will be wounds and anger. The best that can be hoped for is that Augusus can IMPOSE peace through strength of arms...and that the Roman people can learn self-ccntrol ... like Aeneis often exhibited ...Aeneis...a humanly flawed man...if Aeneis can do...flawed Romans can understand that they can do it too.
But bottom line, I keep hearing the words of Venus to Aeneis. Venus is HIS MOTHER. And she's a GODDESS. So I would think she would want the best for her son and that she would have some power to see that he gets what is best---to the degree that it is possible.
And what does she tell him he has going for him?
She tells him to stop complaining and tells him that he's still alive.
Fitz 1.533:
"Whoever you are"
[This is her SON...but Venus speaks broadly here}
Whoever you are, I doubt Heaven is unfriendly
To you" [and again...this COULD BE a non-god statement...that there is doubt that Heaven is unfriendly to Aeneis...because there is doubt that there is a Heaven ... therefore there is no Heaven against Aeneis]... as you still breathe life-giving air
On your approach to the Tyrian town."
I'm thinking that that is Virgil's bottom line, that whoever you are...if you are alive, you are alive. Stop complaining and get about the business of living; determine your goals [such as Aeneis has] and then put in the effort to achieve them.
Over and over Virgil has men making the effort...pulling their hearts out...adjusting sails... And the men and women who are shades... life is over for them...
Do it now, suggests Virgil, "as you still breathe life-giving air."
Thomas wrote: "Drances reminds me a little of Thersites in the Iliad..."
I did go back and re-read a couple sections. You were quite right. Both vocal grumblers, both better at grumbling--verbally belligerant-- than at fighting on the field, both, seemingly, with perhaps with uncertainty as to who their fathers might be.
Nice catch. I had tucked Thersites far into the back corners of my mind.
I did go back and re-read a couple sections. You were quite right. Both vocal grumblers, both better at grumbling--verbally belligerant-- than at fighting on the field, both, seemingly, with perhaps with uncertainty as to who their fathers might be.
Nice catch. I had tucked Thersites far into the back corners of my mind.
Adelle wrote: "Questions regarding religion in that first section:No spoilers. Long.
As brought up earlier, the "empty images" on Juno's temple... etc...here we have "his ritual vows"...(Fitz 11.5)...is the..."
This brings us back to the very first question -- maybe the primary question -- of the Aeneid: "Can divine hearts know such anger?"
I'm not sure that Vergil is questioning the existence of the gods with that question, but it's an interesting possibility. Does Vergil suggest anywhere that there might be an alternative explanation for the "upsets and hardships" that Aeneas endures? If Vergil thinks the gods are merely a literary device, does he show his hand anywhere?
Thomas wrote: "This brings us back to the very first question -- maybe the primary question -- of the Aeneid: "Can divine hearts know such anger?"
"I'm not sure that Vergil is questioning the existence of the gods with that question, but it's an interesting possibility."
Nice observation, Thomas, I hadn't spotted that as a "possible" questioning of the gods...but it could be. So many lines "could" be read that way.
" Does Vergil suggest anywhere that there might be an alternative explanation for the "upsets and hardships" that Aeneas endures?"
I believe he does "suggest."
There is that voiced question of Neptune early in Book 1:
"Are you so sure your line is privileged?" (Fitz 1.181)
I had originally thought that this might have been a jab at Augustus. You know...not a blood son, but an adopted son of Julius Ceasar. And even Julius Ceasar...that was a made up stretch...hey, Iulus is ALMOST the same name as Julius...and remember, it wasn't even originally Iulus, but "Ilus while Ilium stood"...that whole connection was made up.
However, it could be questioning the standing of the gods themselves.
"How dare you to throw heaven and earth
Into confusion, by no will of mine?"
IF Neptune rules the seas, for real, as a real power, and Neptune had no will to hinder Aeneas with sea storms, then wouldn't it be improbable that a more lowly power [Aeolus] could circumvent the wishes and rule of Neptune? Therefore [maybe], no Aeolus, no Neptune, no gods?
I may have posted this earlier:
"All powerful Jove...Do you see this? Are we then fools to fear you/ Throwing down your bolts? are they aimless in the clouds/ and rumbling thunder meaningless?.....As for ourselves, here we bring gifts/ Into these shrines--supposedly your shrines--/ Hugging that empty fable." (F 4.283+).
Two things: in almost every case that I have noted or can recall, when the gods favor Aeneas and his men...Virgil ALSO writes of the efforts that the men themselves have made...it could be interpretted that it is the men themselves who accomplish goals that can be accomplished through the efforts of men. "WE hoisted the sails," "WE manned the oars," "WE changed course."
And, in regards to natural causes, rather than coming about through actions of the gods, Virgil "might" be suggesting that what happens is nothing more than Nature, Chance....it is just what happens...determined seemingly by no rhyme or reason or god...just chance.
I wasn't looking for Chance when I first started reading, but after a while, I started noticing it repeatedly:
"But said if I had luck,"
"We drew lots"
"the luck of battle"
"it happened"
"Now we drew lots"
"But actually chance/ Brought them the wished-for glory"
"his luck failed"
"stumbled by bad luck"
"they gathered round/ A bronze helm and took their lots"
"And gave home sites by lot"
There's Aeneas speaking with Andromache, NOT referencing any gods, "Alive, oh yes; through every mortal danger/ This world holds, I carry on my life./
Be sure that what you see is real." (F 3.429))
"I'm not sure that Vergil is questioning the existence of the gods with that question, but it's an interesting possibility."
Nice observation, Thomas, I hadn't spotted that as a "possible" questioning of the gods...but it could be. So many lines "could" be read that way.
" Does Vergil suggest anywhere that there might be an alternative explanation for the "upsets and hardships" that Aeneas endures?"
I believe he does "suggest."
There is that voiced question of Neptune early in Book 1:
"Are you so sure your line is privileged?" (Fitz 1.181)
I had originally thought that this might have been a jab at Augustus. You know...not a blood son, but an adopted son of Julius Ceasar. And even Julius Ceasar...that was a made up stretch...hey, Iulus is ALMOST the same name as Julius...and remember, it wasn't even originally Iulus, but "Ilus while Ilium stood"...that whole connection was made up.
However, it could be questioning the standing of the gods themselves.
"How dare you to throw heaven and earth
Into confusion, by no will of mine?"
IF Neptune rules the seas, for real, as a real power, and Neptune had no will to hinder Aeneas with sea storms, then wouldn't it be improbable that a more lowly power [Aeolus] could circumvent the wishes and rule of Neptune? Therefore [maybe], no Aeolus, no Neptune, no gods?
I may have posted this earlier:
"All powerful Jove...Do you see this? Are we then fools to fear you/ Throwing down your bolts? are they aimless in the clouds/ and rumbling thunder meaningless?.....As for ourselves, here we bring gifts/ Into these shrines--supposedly your shrines--/ Hugging that empty fable." (F 4.283+).
Two things: in almost every case that I have noted or can recall, when the gods favor Aeneas and his men...Virgil ALSO writes of the efforts that the men themselves have made...it could be interpretted that it is the men themselves who accomplish goals that can be accomplished through the efforts of men. "WE hoisted the sails," "WE manned the oars," "WE changed course."
And, in regards to natural causes, rather than coming about through actions of the gods, Virgil "might" be suggesting that what happens is nothing more than Nature, Chance....it is just what happens...determined seemingly by no rhyme or reason or god...just chance.
I wasn't looking for Chance when I first started reading, but after a while, I started noticing it repeatedly:
"But said if I had luck,"
"We drew lots"
"the luck of battle"
"it happened"
"Now we drew lots"
"But actually chance/ Brought them the wished-for glory"
"his luck failed"
"stumbled by bad luck"
"they gathered round/ A bronze helm and took their lots"
"And gave home sites by lot"
There's Aeneas speaking with Andromache, NOT referencing any gods, "Alive, oh yes; through every mortal danger/ This world holds, I carry on my life./
Be sure that what you see is real." (F 3.429))
If Vergil really thought the gods didn't exist, he would have had to invent them. I suppose in some sense he did, at least his version of them. But he can't have thought that he was writing scripture, could he? An alternative, and more reasonable view is that Vergil knew that his gods, as he wrote them, were simple fictions, completely separate from the "real" gods worshipped in the Pantheon.
Whatever his personal beliefs were, it is certain is that Vergil believes in Fate. When Jupiter reads from the "book of fate" in Book One, it is clear to the reader that regardless of the actions of the gods and the will of mortals (and the verses of epic poets) that Fate reigns supreme. Even Juno is fated to relent in her anger against the Trojans. What happens as his characters make their way to their fated end is another matter, and this becomes the substance of his poem.
yeah, but weren't you the guy who said that Fate is simply what happened?
(maybe it was someone else...:)...)
(maybe it was someone else...:)...)
Lol. So 'twas you, my friend. Ha! Hey...wait a minute... What are you doing reading book 11 comments without you having read Book 11. Mmmm. Ok. I will wait for you. I won't start reading Book 12.
Maybe you could say somthing about Charles's wife. Someone should post a little something about Camilla. (...;) I DO remember that you had referenced Camilla that way ;)....)
Maybe you could say somthing about Charles's wife. Someone should post a little something about Camilla. (...;) I DO remember that you had referenced Camilla that way ;)....)
Book 7, Post 7, Patrice wrote, "I only woke up at the end when he described "Camilla" the tough "warrior girl". Camilla, Prince Charles' wife, fits the bill. Perhaps her parents wanted a warrior daughter? They got one! "
Inveterate reader of National Enquirer headlines that I am, how could I POSSiby forget that?
Inveterate reader of National Enquirer headlines that I am, how could I POSSiby forget that?
Adelle wrote: "yeah, but weren't you the guy who said that Fate is simply what happened? (maybe it was someone else...:)...)"
But there is a way in which that's true: After the fact, OR from an omniscient point of view. Jupiter has that point of view as he reads from the book of fate. He can look at things as if they have already happened. And as a creator in his own right, so can Vergil.
But fate is meaningful only if there is a reason why things happen, in which case things don't simply happen. They must happen for a reason, even if the reason is simply the will of a god. Is the suffering of Aeneas meaningful in this way? Does he suffer for a reason?
And why is Dido called "ignorant of fate" ??
OK, I’m game. I'll give it a go.
Thomas wrote: "An alternative, and more reasonable view is that Vergil knew that his gods, as he wrote them, were simple fictions, completely separate from the "real" gods worshipped in the Pantheon."
Mmmm…Yes, I would venture that Virgil was writing his gods as fiction…but I think, too, that it is a reasonable view that Virgil didn't believe in the gods of Rome either. I read that there is “a widespread view” that Virgil had at one time been an Epicurean -----and they were atomists, not believing in any divine intervention in the lives of humans....
that they “attribute[d] all things to chance.” That Virgil had read Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, a poem that holds that the world "operates according to these physical principles, guided by fortuna, "chance", and not the divine intervention of the traditional Roman deities" (Wikipedia).
And the more I think about it the more all those mentions of chance and lot and luck by Virgil don’t seem to be casual word choices…I don’t think that’s just a coincidence---It was an act of Virgil that put those words there.
I think that is Virgil saying, as Lucretius said, that chance and lot and luck---and the acts of other men, not divine intervention, are what affects the lives of men. And the numerous ... ambiguous.... statements that "could" be read as questioning the authority, perhaps questioning the very existence, of the gods....has brought me round to a point where I can very reasonably view Virgil as a non-believer. In fact, I do.
Whatever his personal beliefs were, it is certain is that Vergil believes in Fate. When Jupiter reads from the "book of fate" in Book One, it is clear to the reader that regardless of the actions of the gods and the will of mortals (and the verses of epic poets) that Fate reigns supreme. Even Juno is fated to relent in her anger against the Trojans. What happens as his characters make their way to their fated end is another matter, and this becomes the substance of his poem."
Mmmm....I must be in a disagreeable mood tonight. I respectfully disagree with you there, too. I don't think at all that it was certain that Virgil believed in Fate. I believe that was nothing more that a story he was peddling for Rome, on behalf of Rome, in hope for Rome….maybe ??? to try to make them believe that Rome was fated to have peace…so that they would work and sacrifice---like Aeneas--- for the greater good of Rome. I don’t know. Maybe. Maybe to give the Romans something to believe in. Like I said, I read The Aeneid very pessimistically---that all Aeneas, all any human, really has is life-giving breath---no help from any gods.
In the story itself, yes, fate reigns. But it's just a made up story. Just like Julius Caesar is a made up descendent of Ilus (Ascanius). Yes, Jupiter reads from that book of Fate...but as you yourself have pointed out, the gods as Virgil wrote them were simple fictions...he could have them say almost anything he wanted them to say.
But fate is meaningful only if there is a reason why things happen, in which case things don't simply happen. They must happen for a reason, even if the reason is simply the will of a god.
Ah, but I believe the reverse---that Virgil is saying that there is NO reason why things happen. That things happen due to luck or lot or chance…that there is no will of the gods intervening in the lives of men. And that therefore Virgil is saying that there is NO meaningful fate….that there is simply life…and that anything meaningful has to be provided by man…like the men pulling the oars…to save their own lives….or to win some prize they themselves hold to be of value;….like Julius Caesar providing himself with the story that he was descended from Ilus, Iulius, Julius…which was a lie/or…a needed story….and that Virgil here is providing a story…providing a back story for Rome which will provide a foundation, an example, for Romans going forward…
.Is the suffering of Aeneas meaningful in this way? Does he suffer for a reason?
mmmm. Aeneas had been a warrior at Troy. His father, whom he deferred to, was still alive. Priam who made the important decisions for the Trojans was still alive. Suddenly, with the fall of Troy, Aeneas felt [or the gods so instructed him] that it was up to him to get his family and fellow Trojans somewhere they could live and thrive. It doesn't seem to me that there was a "reason" that Aeneas had to suffer. He simply did. However...because he suffered...because he grappled with problems that were too big for him...and he wrestled with himself...wanting to do the right thing...what he believed based on what was meaningful to himself...he grew [as a leader].
And why is Dido called "ignorant of fate
? Where would I find that line, Thomas?
Thomas wrote: "An alternative, and more reasonable view is that Vergil knew that his gods, as he wrote them, were simple fictions, completely separate from the "real" gods worshipped in the Pantheon."
Mmmm…Yes, I would venture that Virgil was writing his gods as fiction…but I think, too, that it is a reasonable view that Virgil didn't believe in the gods of Rome either. I read that there is “a widespread view” that Virgil had at one time been an Epicurean -----and they were atomists, not believing in any divine intervention in the lives of humans....
that they “attribute[d] all things to chance.” That Virgil had read Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, a poem that holds that the world "operates according to these physical principles, guided by fortuna, "chance", and not the divine intervention of the traditional Roman deities" (Wikipedia).
And the more I think about it the more all those mentions of chance and lot and luck by Virgil don’t seem to be casual word choices…I don’t think that’s just a coincidence---It was an act of Virgil that put those words there.
I think that is Virgil saying, as Lucretius said, that chance and lot and luck---and the acts of other men, not divine intervention, are what affects the lives of men. And the numerous ... ambiguous.... statements that "could" be read as questioning the authority, perhaps questioning the very existence, of the gods....has brought me round to a point where I can very reasonably view Virgil as a non-believer. In fact, I do.
Whatever his personal beliefs were, it is certain is that Vergil believes in Fate. When Jupiter reads from the "book of fate" in Book One, it is clear to the reader that regardless of the actions of the gods and the will of mortals (and the verses of epic poets) that Fate reigns supreme. Even Juno is fated to relent in her anger against the Trojans. What happens as his characters make their way to their fated end is another matter, and this becomes the substance of his poem."
Mmmm....I must be in a disagreeable mood tonight. I respectfully disagree with you there, too. I don't think at all that it was certain that Virgil believed in Fate. I believe that was nothing more that a story he was peddling for Rome, on behalf of Rome, in hope for Rome….maybe ??? to try to make them believe that Rome was fated to have peace…so that they would work and sacrifice---like Aeneas--- for the greater good of Rome. I don’t know. Maybe. Maybe to give the Romans something to believe in. Like I said, I read The Aeneid very pessimistically---that all Aeneas, all any human, really has is life-giving breath---no help from any gods.
In the story itself, yes, fate reigns. But it's just a made up story. Just like Julius Caesar is a made up descendent of Ilus (Ascanius). Yes, Jupiter reads from that book of Fate...but as you yourself have pointed out, the gods as Virgil wrote them were simple fictions...he could have them say almost anything he wanted them to say.
But fate is meaningful only if there is a reason why things happen, in which case things don't simply happen. They must happen for a reason, even if the reason is simply the will of a god.
Ah, but I believe the reverse---that Virgil is saying that there is NO reason why things happen. That things happen due to luck or lot or chance…that there is no will of the gods intervening in the lives of men. And that therefore Virgil is saying that there is NO meaningful fate….that there is simply life…and that anything meaningful has to be provided by man…like the men pulling the oars…to save their own lives….or to win some prize they themselves hold to be of value;….like Julius Caesar providing himself with the story that he was descended from Ilus, Iulius, Julius…which was a lie/or…a needed story….and that Virgil here is providing a story…providing a back story for Rome which will provide a foundation, an example, for Romans going forward…
.Is the suffering of Aeneas meaningful in this way? Does he suffer for a reason?
mmmm. Aeneas had been a warrior at Troy. His father, whom he deferred to, was still alive. Priam who made the important decisions for the Trojans was still alive. Suddenly, with the fall of Troy, Aeneas felt [or the gods so instructed him] that it was up to him to get his family and fellow Trojans somewhere they could live and thrive. It doesn't seem to me that there was a "reason" that Aeneas had to suffer. He simply did. However...because he suffered...because he grappled with problems that were too big for him...and he wrestled with himself...wanting to do the right thing...what he believed based on what was meaningful to himself...he grew [as a leader].
And why is Dido called "ignorant of fate
? Where would I find that line, Thomas?
Adelle wrote: "I read that there is “a widespread view” that Virgil had at one time been an Epicurean -----and they were atomists, not believing in any divine intervention in the lives of humans....."Not much is known about Virgil's life, so a lot of this (on my part, anyway) is just speculation and interpretation. The Aeneid itself was used as a sort of oracle (see Rabelais as a comic example of this) which is an indication that there really is no overriding and clear philosophy here. The book itself is ripe for speculation, let alone what Vergil himself actually believed. We do have some scraps of biography, courtesy Aelius Donatus:
From Silo Virgil learned the teachings of Epicurus. Varus was his companion in this instruction. And although he inserted the opinions of opposing philosophers in his books, he himself was of the Academy. For he preferred the judgements of Plato before all others.
Adelle wrote: "Ah, but I believe the reverse---that Virgil is saying that there is NO reason why things happen. That things happen due to luck or lot or chance…that there is no will of the gods intervening in the lives of men. And that therefore Virgil is saying that there is NO meaningful fate….that there is simply life…and that anything meaningful has to be provided by man…"
Your view is pessimistic indeed! In this case, Vergil was a man who dedicated his life to a lie and whose work was pure hypocrisy. In other words, a poet, as described by Socrates. No wonder he wanted the Aeneid burned!
But you could be right. The entire poem is based on the idea that Aeneas is fulfilling his fate, but it is just a poem, after all.
And why is Dido called "ignorant of fate
? Where would I find that line, Thomas?
Book 1, 299.
Thomas wrote:"Your view is pessimistic indeed!
It is.
In this case, Vergil was a man who dedicated his life to a lie and whose work was pure hypocrisy "
But perhaps Virgil's poem wasn't a lie...perhaps in poetic form it was as close as Virgil could come to writing the truth as he saw it...perhaps it's a true reflection of what Virgil saw...men fighting for power and gold...men and women (and gods, if he thought there were some) manipulating for their own self interests...and either not caring who they hurt...or valuing their own self interests above any hurt they caused to others...
That in inserting those numerous "if" questions ["if you can trust a seer..."...can you?]["If divine justice counts for anything..." ... Does it?] Virgil is trying to make men--some men--question their belief in the efficacy of the gods...to make men--some men---begin to consider that any improvements in their lives would have to come from the efforts of men.
And the men who aren't capable of believing in the justice of men [since Virgil has questioned the justice of the gods] have a story that shows them that they had best behave well because the gods are watching. Living in the times he did I would imagine that Virgil would have seen that if men weren't going to work for a just society because they believed in a just society... Virgil knowing there were people after their own interests [even, perhaps especially, Augustus].... then there had best be a fear of the retribution of the gods to keep people somewhat correctly behaved. Cynical. Realistic. Looking at the ultimate goal. <>
And Virgil, it seems to me, approves of appropriate lies. It could be that he sees The Aeneid as the appropriate lie. Or the necessary lie. Or the lie that might best bring lasting peace to Italy. More than once, he has Aeneas "lie," with good purpose and good results.
Aeneas gives a hearty speech, "Friends and companions...Some day...through diversities of luck [there is nary a god in this paragraph to help them] .....more auspicious days" ...
"So ran the speech. Burdened and sick at heart,
He FEIGNED [LIED] hope in his look, and inwardly
Contained his anguish" (F 1.270+).
It is.
In this case, Vergil was a man who dedicated his life to a lie and whose work was pure hypocrisy "
But perhaps Virgil's poem wasn't a lie...perhaps in poetic form it was as close as Virgil could come to writing the truth as he saw it...perhaps it's a true reflection of what Virgil saw...men fighting for power and gold...men and women (and gods, if he thought there were some) manipulating for their own self interests...and either not caring who they hurt...or valuing their own self interests above any hurt they caused to others...
That in inserting those numerous "if" questions ["if you can trust a seer..."...can you?]["If divine justice counts for anything..." ... Does it?] Virgil is trying to make men--some men--question their belief in the efficacy of the gods...to make men--some men---begin to consider that any improvements in their lives would have to come from the efforts of men.
And the men who aren't capable of believing in the justice of men [since Virgil has questioned the justice of the gods] have a story that shows them that they had best behave well because the gods are watching. Living in the times he did I would imagine that Virgil would have seen that if men weren't going to work for a just society because they believed in a just society... Virgil knowing there were people after their own interests [even, perhaps especially, Augustus].... then there had best be a fear of the retribution of the gods to keep people somewhat correctly behaved. Cynical. Realistic. Looking at the ultimate goal. <>
And Virgil, it seems to me, approves of appropriate lies. It could be that he sees The Aeneid as the appropriate lie. Or the necessary lie. Or the lie that might best bring lasting peace to Italy. More than once, he has Aeneas "lie," with good purpose and good results.
Aeneas gives a hearty speech, "Friends and companions...Some day...through diversities of luck [there is nary a god in this paragraph to help them] .....more auspicious days" ...
"So ran the speech. Burdened and sick at heart,
He FEIGNED [LIED] hope in his look, and inwardly
Contained his anguish" (F 1.270+).
As I see it, the alternative view to a fated Rome is one that is created by pure endurance, not one that is created by chance. Chance and luck are simply what mortals call fate before they recognize what it is -- fate can only be seen to be fate after the fact, or from an omniscient point of view, such as the one enjoyed by Jupiter or Vergil. (The Latin word fato means "what is said." How appropriate for a poet!)It seems to me that in the Aeneid chance and luck are the things to be overcome -- it is the job of men to tame the wilderness and control their passions. Storms and wild beasts are used metaphorically to show the forces that must be conquered. I think the gods are symbolic of these forces -- sometimes they help, like a fair wind blowing in the right direction; other times they require a sacrifice of your best helmsman. Some gods help, others hinder. The job of mortals is to endure and civilize the wilderness, both the outside wilderness of war and the inside wilderness of love.
And sure, the poem is a "lie." Aeneas leaves the underworld through the gate of false dreams, and presumably Vergil didn't believe himself to be a prophet. Nevertheless, I think he is able to tell us a few things about reality of Rome and the way that Romans viewed themselves and their history at that point in time. We can be pessimistic about that from a modern perspective -- we can see from our own history the numerous problems created by imperialism -- but I'm still not sure that Vergil saw it that way.
Sure, sure, you must see the poem from the perspective that resonates for you.
Me, too. I'm kinda talking my way through it. I notice sometimes I see it from one side, sometimes from an almost opposite perspective. Just feeling my way.
(Aside, I do think that Vergil saw the imperialism of Rome as perhaps the only solution to the civil wars...that much as he disliked it...he hated civil wars more....that the imperialism of Rome was the lesser of two evils to him. Looking at The Aeneid, I think I would see it that way too. That imperialism would be better than Troy, and constant civil wars. Just my take.)
Me, too. I'm kinda talking my way through it. I notice sometimes I see it from one side, sometimes from an almost opposite perspective. Just feeling my way.
(Aside, I do think that Vergil saw the imperialism of Rome as perhaps the only solution to the civil wars...that much as he disliked it...he hated civil wars more....that the imperialism of Rome was the lesser of two evils to him. Looking at The Aeneid, I think I would see it that way too. That imperialism would be better than Troy, and constant civil wars. Just my take.)
I also like the fact that Aeneas is not a perfect hero, and that his final act in the poem is one of furor and not pietas. Octavian was far from perfect as well, but he changed as he grew older and became a better leader, less furious and more in control. Maybe the model of Aeneas was helpful to him.
Thomas wrote: "I also like the fact that Aeneas is not a perfect hero, ."
Me, too. I really disliked what I saw as his flaws...but like you, I liked that he WAS flawed, imperfect...like the rest of us.
Me, too. I really disliked what I saw as his flaws...but like you, I liked that he WAS flawed, imperfect...like the rest of us.
Well, don't you just know how to make a person feel good. Lol, and that's on top of the good time I had reading Vergil. Thank you for encouraging me to read it. Well worth it.
Patrice wrote: "Thomas, didn't you say that the Aeneid was Vergil's Myth of Er? If that is the case then would Vergil have had to believe any of it? Wouldn't it all just be a story to manipulate the people? "There seem to be elements of the Myth of Er in Book 6, certainly. As a whole, I'm not so sure. It's debatable whether the Aeneid is only a piece of propaganda. I think it's much more than that, but it's hard to deny that propaganda is part of it.
Did Vergil believe his own stories? I have no idea, but could we ask the same thing of Milton? Did Milton believe the stories that he adapted for Paradise Lost? I'm sure he did, but I think he probably knew the difference between his embellishments and scripture.
Patrice wrote: "I meant that the Aeneid is analogous to the myth of Er, not that it's the same story. I think it's an example of "virtuous" poetry, meant to inculcate good values ..."Most of the time it does seem that way, but then there is the murder of Turnus at the end. I love this, because for me it demonstrates that Vergil is not purely a moralist, let alone a propagandist. Aeneas is not a paragon of virtue. He's a man with passions and feelings that he can't control, a fully three-dimensional character who fails himself and his friends. He is still a hero but he is also a flawed and human character.
That doesn't mean that the poem doesn't inculcate good values, which I think it does. But as an image i think it's less than Platonic. I've never found the myth of Er to be that convincing anyway. (I also wonder if the Er story is an elaborate example of Socratic irony, but that's another story...)
The body of Pallas is sent back to Evander wrapped in one of the robes of Dido. Is this significant?
Ambassadors from the Latins arrive to ask for a truce to bury their dead. Aeneas grants this and tells them that it isn't them he fights, but their king. He suggests it would be better for him to meet Turnus in single combat.
After these scenes of mourning the narrative turns to the Latins and their failed attempt to secure the assistance of Diomedes. Latinus suggests a peace treaty. Drances agrees, but Turnus furiously refuses and there is a heated exchange between the two of them. Turnus takes his army on the offensive, intending to trap Aeneas in an ambush.
The final section, roughly the second half of the book, focuses on the resumption of battle and the character of Camilla. Once again, a woman rules. How does Camilla compare with Dido? Do they share common traits? Can we make any conclusions about how Vergil treats women in the poem?