Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Virgil, Aeneid - Revisited
>
Book Three
date
newest »
newest »
Thomas wrote: "Achaemenides. What purpose does he serve in the narrative?..."The obvious purpose would be to show that Aeneas is not a vengeful character.
However, I think the main purpose of Achaemenides is to be a reference point. In this way Virgil included the Aeneid in the same timeline with the Odyssey. Now we know for sure that Aeneas reached the Cyclopes after Ulysses left the island. Moreover, Achaemenides deplorable state is showing us that he was living there for a while...
How long exactly?
Ulysses reached the Cyclops at the beginning of his ten years jurney, probably a few months after he left Troy. On the other hand, Aeneas spent some years in Thrace and Crete, so I suppose he reached the Cyclops around 3 years after Ulysses left.
EDIT: I was rereading the end of book III and I've noticed that Polyphemus eye socket was still oozing blood from his confrontation with Ulysses, so maybe my calculations are wrong and Aeneas reached the island just a few weeks before Ulysses left...
Thomas wrote: "There are some obvious parallels to the Odyssey here, though there are characteristic differences. ..."
I like that Virgil is using the famous "rosy-fingered dawn" epitet from the Odyssey:
"rubescebat stellis Aurora fugatis" - the rosy dawn is routing the stars"
I'm not sure about the connections with The Odyssey (it's been years and years, since I read), but I'm absolutely loving the vivid imagery that's included in Book III.
The following really jumped out to me (Fitzgerald, III.760-764):
But Aetna, just beyond, rumbled and flashed,
Formidible in eruption. Up the sky
She sent a somber cloud of billowing smoke,
A pitch-black turbine full of glowing ash
And balls of fire to lick the stars.
I'm sure, no doubt, that this is due in part to the work of individual translators, but still, such a cool way to communicate this story.
Kyle wrote: "I'm not sure about the connections with The Odyssey (it's been years and years, since I read), but I'm absolutely loving the vivid imagery that's included in Book III.The following really jumped o..."
I wonder if Vergil witnessed volcano eruption himself or he just heard stories about it. Maybe there was an eruption during his lifetime. Anyway, it's a very good description.
I love the detail about Achaemenides coming from a poor family.“…My father is poor,
So I joined Ulysses’ army and went to Troy
-Would I have stayed home safe and sound from this.
My fellow soldiers heedlessly left me here”
(trans. Ferry, 881-884)
Reminds me of two lines from the song Who Will Save Us Now by Straylight Run “You can rest assured / It's the young and the poor who fought all our wars”.
Sinisa wrote: "Kyle wrote: "I'm not sure about the connections with The Odyssey (it's been years and years, since I read), but I'm absolutely loving the vivid imagery that's included in Book III.The following re..."
Per Livius.org on Mt. Aetna eruptions in the ancient world:
"It is probably the most active volcano in Europe; it certainly is the volcano with the longest recorded history. The Athenian playwright Aeschylus and the poet Pindar mention the eruption of 476/475 and the historian Thucydides refers to a similar event in 425.
The eruption of 396 was recorded by Diodorus of Sicily. The list of omens by Julius Obsequens (based on the Roman historian Livy) refers to other volcanic activities in 140, 135, and 126. Orosius mentions an eruption in 123 BCE, Petronius knows of activity in 49, Virgil in 44, Appian of Alexandria in 38, and Cassius Dio in 32 BCE. This list of ancient eruptions is concluded by Suetonius, who informs us that Mount Etna was active in 40 CE."
I've read that Vergil traveled to many of the destinations he described in his poem. I imagine he could have visited Sicily and Mt Etna during an eruption. I don't know how common it was for Roman upper class to travel around their empire, especially as tourists.
Emil wrote: "However, I think the main purpose of Achaemenides is to be a reference point. In this way Virgil included the Aeneid in the same timeline with the Odyssey. Now we know for sure that Aeneas reached the Cyclopes after Ulysses left the island. Moreover, Achaemenides deplorable state is showing us that he was living there for a while...How long exactly?"
For me it's a stark reminder that Vergil is not just adapting received mythology -- he's inventing it, and with a purpose. We can't do this with history, and anyone who tried to do it with scripture would be asking for serious trouble. (Although it's not uncommon to make stuff up and embellish family histories, and maybe that is what Vergil is doing here.)
As for how long Achaemenides has been on the island... I'm not sure, but this is toward the end of the voyage, and later on we learn that it was in the sixth year of their wanderings that they landed in Sicily. So it was at least a number of years.
If only Aeneas had paid attention to Creusa’s ghost in Book 2, the Trojans could have saved themselves two failed attempts. “A long exile is your fate…/the vast plains of the sea are yours to plow/until you reach Hesperian land, where Lydian Tiber/ flows…” (Fagles, Book 2, lines 967-970). But I guess he was fated not to listen, just as Anchises was fated to ignore Cassandra’s prophecy: “Now I recall how she’d reveal our destination,/Hesperia: time and again repeating it by name,/repeating the name of Italy. But who believed/ a Trojan expedition could reach Italian shores?/Who was moved by Cassandra’s visions then?” Book 3, lines 223-227)
Thomas asked about the gift of Pyrrhus’s helmet. The gift does seem loaded with possible meanings. When we meet Pyrrhus in Book 2, the poet compares him to a snake: “…fed full on poisonous weeds/ and now it springs into light, sloughing its old skin/ to glisten sleek in its newfound youth, its back slithering,/ coiling, its proud chest rearing high to the sun,/ its triple tongue flickering through its fangs.” (Book 2, lines 588-592). And he kills Priam, who is hardly a worthy enemy for such a powerful fighter, on an altar, quite deliberately: “That said, he drags the old man/straight to the altar…”. which seems the antithesis of piety.
Pyrrhus survives the fighting and returns home safely, only to be killed by Orestes, after he marries Orestes’ desired bride (Helen’s daughter]: “he [Orestes] seized Pyrrhus,/ quite off guard, and butchered him at his father’s altar.” [Book 3, lines 395-396]. So, Pyrrhus in turn was killed at an altar as he had killed Priam, and was a powerful fighter who was caught off guard (as the Trojans were by the deceit of the horse). He also died in a disagreement over a woman with obvious parallels to the origins of the Trojan war. (We don’t hear what Helen’s daughter thought of either of her suitors).
Jacob wrote: "Sinisa wrote: "Kyle wrote: "I'm not sure about the connections with The Odyssey (it's been years and years, since I read), but I'm absolutely loving the vivid imagery that's included in Book III.T..."
Cool insight!
Susan wrote: "If only Aeneas had paid attention to Creusa’s ghost in Book 2, the Trojans could have saved themselves two failed attempts. “A long exile is your fate…/the vast plains of the sea are yours to plow/..."Is there any avoiding fate? Even the gods are subject to it! It makes me wonder then why it's a theme. It doesn't seem there is much to discuss -- it just is what it is. Maybe it's not so much what happens, which is fated, as *how* it happens?
I found this book, Book 3, sadder than the two previous books. During that last fight for Troy, Aeneas and his people had adrenaline to sustain them. About all they could do was to react to what was going on.
Now they have had more time fully realize their losses, they're depressingly aware that the gods are against them ("Now our high masters had seen fit to visit/ Upon the Asian power of Priam's house/ Unmerited ruin" (Fitz 1).
Understandably, there is much weeping and offerings at altars in this book.
And then how heartrending to REPEATEDLY lose a home. They try to pick themselves up and build a community for themselves. And repeatedly, they find themselves having to abandon their work and their sense of place and sail on. "All lost heart" (Fitz 353).
Very sad, too, when they find Helenus and Andromache. Probably the initial joy of seeing those they knew in Troy. But then the realization that those survivors are living greatly diminished lives --- trying to live in the past by building a miniature gulf version of once splendid Troy. ("I saw before me Troy in miniature,/ A slender copy of our massive tower, a dry brooklet named Xanthus" (Fitz 477). Andromache going thru the motions... "at a tomb called Hector's/ ... an empty mound of turf" (Fitz 411).
{Thomas Wolfe, You Can't Go Home Again}
A sad, sad chapter. But they're alive and must live so they continue on.
Now they have had more time fully realize their losses, they're depressingly aware that the gods are against them ("Now our high masters had seen fit to visit/ Upon the Asian power of Priam's house/ Unmerited ruin" (Fitz 1).
Understandably, there is much weeping and offerings at altars in this book.
And then how heartrending to REPEATEDLY lose a home. They try to pick themselves up and build a community for themselves. And repeatedly, they find themselves having to abandon their work and their sense of place and sail on. "All lost heart" (Fitz 353).
Very sad, too, when they find Helenus and Andromache. Probably the initial joy of seeing those they knew in Troy. But then the realization that those survivors are living greatly diminished lives --- trying to live in the past by building a miniature gulf version of once splendid Troy. ("I saw before me Troy in miniature,/ A slender copy of our massive tower, a dry brooklet named Xanthus" (Fitz 477). Andromache going thru the motions... "at a tomb called Hector's/ ... an empty mound of turf" (Fitz 411).
{Thomas Wolfe, You Can't Go Home Again}
A sad, sad chapter. But they're alive and must live so they continue on.
Thomas wrote: "Maybe it's not so much what happens, which is fated, as *how* it happens?.."It may also be how they react to what is fated.
Thomas wrote: Achaemenides. What purpose does he serve in the narrative?..."
Emil, I think, makes a good point that the obvious reason is to reference similarities with the Odessey. Moreover, because Homer's Cyclops/ Charybdis/ Scylla scenes were so vivid, Virgil doesn't have to devote a lot of writing on them, and yet, the scenes spring immediately into our minds.
It seems to me, too, that Virgil shows Aenaes developing as a leader and it seems Virgil accomplishes something very Roman here through Achaemenides.
Aeneas had wanted vengeance on Helen..... he wanted to although he knew it would bring no honor. His mother, the goddess, dissuaded him. Here, on his own, Aeneas refrains from running the enemy through simply for having been an enemy. So he's grown.
Aeneas and the Trojans had fallen for the lies and made poor choices through pity. So Aeneas has learned that emotional decisions are not wise decisions.
Achaemendides had warned the Trojans of the Cyclopses. That warning was proven true when Polyphemus appeared. Aeneas takes Achaemendides aboard with his people because, as Fagles put it, "he had earned his way" (Fagles 771).
The reason I see this as Roman is because the Romans became an empire through incorporating former adversaries into themselves. Non-Romans weren't necessarily to be killed. Through service to Rome they could be useful. Not equals, not citizens, but they could become freedmen in the empire and this would benefit the empire. Or so it looks to me.
https://colors-newyork.com/how-did-ro....
Emil, I think, makes a good point that the obvious reason is to reference similarities with the Odessey. Moreover, because Homer's Cyclops/ Charybdis/ Scylla scenes were so vivid, Virgil doesn't have to devote a lot of writing on them, and yet, the scenes spring immediately into our minds.
It seems to me, too, that Virgil shows Aenaes developing as a leader and it seems Virgil accomplishes something very Roman here through Achaemenides.
Aeneas had wanted vengeance on Helen..... he wanted to although he knew it would bring no honor. His mother, the goddess, dissuaded him. Here, on his own, Aeneas refrains from running the enemy through simply for having been an enemy. So he's grown.
Aeneas and the Trojans had fallen for the lies and made poor choices through pity. So Aeneas has learned that emotional decisions are not wise decisions.
Achaemendides had warned the Trojans of the Cyclopses. That warning was proven true when Polyphemus appeared. Aeneas takes Achaemendides aboard with his people because, as Fagles put it, "he had earned his way" (Fagles 771).
The reason I see this as Roman is because the Romans became an empire through incorporating former adversaries into themselves. Non-Romans weren't necessarily to be killed. Through service to Rome they could be useful. Not equals, not citizens, but they could become freedmen in the empire and this would benefit the empire. Or so it looks to me.
https://colors-newyork.com/how-did-ro....
Thomas wrote: "Is there any avoiding fate? Even the gods are subject to it! It makes me wonder then why it's a theme."I've been thinking about the concept of fate with respect to Virgil's creation of the Aeneid, and how Virgil perhaps used "fate" as a persuasive or rhetorical device.
The story of the Trojan War and many parts of Aeneas's story were so familiar that Virgil, in writing this, must have felt to some degree he was bound by the "fate" of the characters' long and rich literary histories.
But also, Virgil was creating a new mythos of Aeneas's creation of Rome, and its connection to Julius and Augustus, and that mythos was not in any way inevitable from the literary characters' "fates" in previous versions of the story. And it seems to me that one way in which Virgil accomplished this was to stress the inevitability of the outcome of his story. In other words, he's bootstrapping his story--creating a new story from scratch and in doing so persuading his reader that it was always fated to be that way.
We can see this in the content. For instance, he includes so many prophesies--in Book 3 alone, we have the prophecy from Celaeno and one from Helenus, along with Polydorus's speech and Anchises's speech, which are both prophetic.
We can also see it in the form. The inevitability of the narrative is propelled invisibly by Virgil's writing style, which is filled with (1) strong, bold pronouncements, (2) sonorous and beautifully measured language, and (3) a supremely confident tone. The effect it has on me is to read along, feeling that things couldn't possibly have been otherwise.
Couple of small things.
Another indication, I thought, of Aeneas developing as a leader, was in his chosen names for the settlements. First he "plotted out/ On that curved shore the walls of a colony --- [...] Aeneadae ... from my own" (Fitz 24-27). I thought his showed Aenaes as too self-centered to be a good leader then. Also, better that Rome isn't named after a Greek.
Next he chose the name "Pergamum'... which it seems may have been another name for Troy. So this is better in some ways... it includes all the Trojans, not just himself. But the gods sent a plague, so they had to move on.
I liked, too, that "the cloudy peaks of the Leucatan mountain/ Came into view" (Fitz 369-70) and that the Trojans landed there "on the Actian shore" and held games... on the water. And Aeneas cuts a legend into a great shield: Aeneas from victorious Greeks these arms" (Fitz 385).
I liked it because it's very near where the Romans won a sea battle at Actium 31 BC. It reminds Roman readers of a great Roman victory.
Another indication, I thought, of Aeneas developing as a leader, was in his chosen names for the settlements. First he "plotted out/ On that curved shore the walls of a colony --- [...] Aeneadae ... from my own" (Fitz 24-27). I thought his showed Aenaes as too self-centered to be a good leader then. Also, better that Rome isn't named after a Greek.
Next he chose the name "Pergamum'... which it seems may have been another name for Troy. So this is better in some ways... it includes all the Trojans, not just himself. But the gods sent a plague, so they had to move on.
I liked, too, that "the cloudy peaks of the Leucatan mountain/ Came into view" (Fitz 369-70) and that the Trojans landed there "on the Actian shore" and held games... on the water. And Aeneas cuts a legend into a great shield: Aeneas from victorious Greeks these arms" (Fitz 385).
I liked it because it's very near where the Romans won a sea battle at Actium 31 BC. It reminds Roman readers of a great Roman victory.
I wondered why neither Helenus nor Celaeno had foretold the death of Anchises. Helenus might have left it unsaid so as not to overwhelm Aeaneas. But Celaeno? She would have loved to have rubbed it in. So... one of those events in life which cannot be foretold.
But it leaves Aeneas at the close of Book 3, emotionally devastated and without the guidance he has relied on his entire life.
"When after this
I put to sea, god drove me to your shores" (Fitz 947).
Yet here's Aeneas, not directing his own course. He's not acting as a leader, right? He didn't seem to even make plans, as he had earlier. Just... wherever the gods sent him.
But it leaves Aeneas at the close of Book 3, emotionally devastated and without the guidance he has relied on his entire life.
"When after this
I put to sea, god drove me to your shores" (Fitz 947).
Yet here's Aeneas, not directing his own course. He's not acting as a leader, right? He didn't seem to even make plans, as he had earlier. Just... wherever the gods sent him.
Susan wrote: "Pyrrhus survives the fighting and returns home safely, only to be killed by Orestes, after he marries Orestes’ desired bride (Helen’s daughter]: “he [Orestes] seized Pyrrhus,/ quite off guard, and butchered him at his father’s altar.” [Book 3, lines 395-396]. So, Pyrrhus in turn was killed at an altar as he had killed Priam, and was a powerful fighter who was caught off guard (as the Trojans were by the deceit of the horse). He also died in a disagreement over a woman with obvious parallels to the origins of the Trojan war. (We don’t hear what Helen’s daughter thought of either of her suitors)."Some satisfying revenge for Priam's treatment - kind of satisfying to see one of the most bloodthirsty warriors in book 2 suffers that same indignity of being killed at an altar . . . and on top of that, over what seems a petty disagreement rather than a "good death" in the glory of war.
I just finished the third book. To me, it's not as evocative as the first two books and feels more like a bridge between sections.Thomas, it says via random websearching that Polydorus was Priam's youngest son who was sent away to be kept safe during the Trojan war (and then dishonorably killed by the king who had been payed to have him under his protection). Is that right? You say "emissary" in your description; so I wasn't sure.
Also, the story of what happens with Helenus and Andromache is fascinating to me. Both of them were taken as spoils in the war, and things seem bleak when Andromache is made Pyrrhus' concubine. But then after Pyrrhus' death, a part of his fortune ends up going to Helenus (Priam's son)? And the two Trojans Helenus and Andromache appear now to be thriving. It says online that Helenus was known as a seer. Did he somehow bargain that skill into some influence with his captors, like the traditional Bible story of Joseph and the Pharoah? I am curious as to how this astounding reversal of fortune happened?
tom wrote: "I've been thinking about the concept of fate with respect to Virgil's creation of the Aeneid, and how Virgil perhaps used "fate" as a persuasive or rhetorical device."I think you're right about this, especially when it appears that Vergil is using fate to justify or glorify Rome. I want to think that fate is a philosophical or theological concept, but the way Vergil invokes it is very contrived. But then the Aeneid itself is completely contrived. Vergil begins the poem by saying he, Vergil, is the one who is singing -- he's not an instrument of a muse or goddess, as Homer appears to be.
Greg wrote: "I just finished the third book. To me, it's not as evocative as the first two books and feels more like a bridge between sections.Thomas, it says via random websearching that Polydorus was Priam'..."
Books 2 and 4 are emotionally charged, so thinking of book 3 as a bridge is nice. It's a dramatic pause.
As for Polydorus, you're right -- Vergil tells us that he was sent to the Thracians with Trojan treasure as a safeguard in case Troy fell. The Thracians are Trojan allies in the Iliad, so that makes sense. He's not an emissary exactly. I'm not sure what the name for that is, now that I think of it.
I understand the death of Polydorus is provided by other sources that are more in line with the Aeneid's adaptation of it, but I have been wondering about the reason behind the departure from Homer.[420] Achilles went next after Polydorus,Was it a way to give closure to the characters by burying a prince of Troy? Or is this an opportunity for a lesson in piety, specifically the accursed lust for gold and the rules of hospitality and not staying in a land where the bonds of hospitality are so stained?
Priam’s son. His father would not allow him
To fight at all, since he was his youngest
And the apple of his eye. He was the fastest too,
And now he was childishly showing off
Just how fast he was, running through the front lines
Until he lost his life. Achilles, the great sprinter,
Hit him in the back as he flashed by. . .
. . .When Hector saw his brother Polydorus
Sinking to the earth with his entrails in his hands
Everything turned hazy. No longer able
To pace the sidelines, he came at Achilles,
His spear like a branch of flame. When Achilles Saw who he was, he was exultant:
Book 20 Iliad, Lombardo translation
David wrote: "I understand the death of Polydorus is provided by other sources that are more in line with the Aeneid's adaptation of it, but I have been wondering about the reason behind the departure from Homer..."I wonder if it might be a thematic choice. Book Three is shrouded in prophecy from the beginning: "Prophecy drove us into empty lands and far off exile." (line 4, Ruden). The voice of Apollo speaks to Aeneas, directly and then through the household gods, and the prophecies of Celaeno and Helenus are focal points. Maybe Vergil chose Euripides' version of Polydorus (in his play Hecuba) just for its spooky prophetic qualities. The ghost of Polydorus opens the play: "I come from vaults of death, from gates of darkness, Where from the Gods aloof doth Hades dwell..."
It seems a pretty clear sign: Thrace is not the place.
Tamara writes about being governed by the fates "It may also be how they react to what is fated." The essence of the Skeptical philosophy is that while we cannot control what will happen, we can control our responses.
The image is The Wheel of Fortune, forever turning. External circumstances constantly change, but the individual anchors within.
Socrates' "know thyself" guides the individual. Knowing yourself, you remain constant in the changing world.
The Chinese Book of Changes I Ching expresses a similar notion.
Polydorus was Priam's youngest son who was sent away to be kept safe during the Trojan war (and then dishonorably killed by the king who had been paid to have him under his protection).As early as Neolithic times, guest protection was sacrosanct. Archeologists have found evidence of this at sites throughout the world.
This custom gave everyone the freedom to travel. A traveler could find shelter and food anywhere. The freedom to move about also meant that discontented people could leave anyplace and seek another.
Susanna wrote: "I have just been reading about the rule of hospitality in The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity by David Graeber and David Wengrow..."I have a hold on it in the library. I'm #50 in line. Ouch! Miles to go before I get my hand on it.
Susanna wrote: "The Dawn of Everything has interesting ideas, but the writing style is quite repetitive."Good to know. Thanks.
I defend the writing style. I need the repetition to get what they are saying into my head. It is mindblowing.
And why treatment of Polydorous is such a grievous sin because it is the basis of freedom of mobility, especially in Greece, The Peloponnesus, Sicily. The territory is so broken up. It is probably the origin of Republics, and governments like city-states.
Adelle wrote: "Next he chose the name "Pergamum'... which it seems may have been another name for Troy. "Troy and Pergamum are two different cities. Pergamum is further south and a little inland from Troy and situated on a spectacular hilltop. On the map Thomas linked to, if you zoom in, Pergamum is north of the city of Bergama. According to Wikipedia, the city came later than Homer (800 BC), though there were signs of human habitation in the area during the Bronze Age. I imagine to Virgil it simply was ancient.
Thomas wrote: "Books 2 and 4 are emotionally charged, so thinking of book 3 as a bridge is nice. It's a dramatic pause."In chapter 3 they spend much at sea, the sea representing the unknown, chaos and death, dramatic indeed!
Tamara wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Maybe it's not so much what happens, which is fated, as *how* it happens?.."It may also be how they react to what is fated."
How do you make sense of life and the world? At the basic level, aren't we categorizing things into certain patterns? It is pattens that taught us how to survive, the seasons come and go, but their seasonal patterns stay the same, many animals come in herds and flocks and move according to their migration patterns, etc. I find old weather aphorisms/predictions fascinating. I have this German "peasant calendar", drawing heavily on the feast days of the saints, many of these were key dates during the seasons. For instance, if you have seen little or no rain by this day, then chances are you'll get a dry year the following year, that sort of thing. I am amazed how correct they were in forecasting general weather patterns just by accumulative observations passed down the generations. Put together, we intuitively categorize certain patterns and draw conclusions from them based on past experience. These established patterns bring stability into our lives what otherwise would be complete randomness.
Kerstin wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Next he chose the name "Pergamum'... which it seems may have been another name for Troy. "
Troy and Pergamum are two different cities. Pergamum is further south and a little inland ..."
Ah, thank you much!
Troy and Pergamum are two different cities. Pergamum is further south and a little inland ..."
Ah, thank you much!
I want to talk about the journey itself, both Odyssey and Aeneid. And to refer again to the book Dawn of Everything. And to the Guest-rights custom. More than a custom and the strongest condemnation of its violation by King of Thrace killing Polydorus. More than a custom it was the foundational freedom to travel, to leave a place one does not like, and go to a strange place and be welcomed. This is how there could be the Republics of the city-states because travel was sacred, and those who traveled were accorded the status and charisma of the shaman. It was the intrinsic value of travel itself. And here we have Odyssey, the very word for it, and give that power again to Aeneas for the very journey itself. From our perspective, the regions they covered are small and confined, but for them, it was The World. Knowledge of the world gained by traveling gave them special powers. Especially the power to govern or to create cities as we have seen Aeneas do. There are three sources of society, Sovereignty (the power to kill), Charisma, political power from Authority, and freedom of mobility, which meant that a ruler had to please the subjects or they would leave.
So the fact of the Aeneid, the journey of Aeneas, is what underlay his right to establish a new Race or to re-establish Troy, Teucer's race.
https://digitalmapsoftheancientworld....
There are some obvious parallels to the Odyssey here, though there are characteristic differences. On their first stop, in Thrace, they meet the shade of Polydorus, a Trojan emissary who was killed by Thracians for his gold when Troy fell. The Trojans decide this is probably not a good omen, give Polydorus a proper burial, and set off again.
When they reach the "Turning Islands," they decide to raid the Harpies' cattle. (Similar to the when Odysseus' men slaughter cattle sacred to Helios in Book 12 of the Odyssey.) It turns out the Harpies resent this imposition. As the Harpies drive the Trojans away, Celaeno delivers a prophecy:
"Walls will never ring your promised city
Until your crime against us and your hunger
Drive you to grind your tables in your jaws."
When the Trojans land in Buthrotum, they find a smaller replica of Troy and meet Andromache, the wife of Hector (who was slain by Achilles). Her new husband, Helenus, delivers yet more prophecy. He advises Aeneas how to sail to their destined home, by avoiding the east coast of Italy and sailing around Sicily rather than facing Scylla and Charybdis in the strait of Messina. He advises Aeneas to see the Sybil of Cumae, and gives them a number of gifts, including the helmet of Pyrrhus. Is this a strange gift?
There is a further echo of the Odyssey when the Trojans encounter the Cyclopes. But again, there is difference: Achaemenides. What purpose does he serve in the narrative?