Classics and the Western Canon discussion

I thought I'd start the discussion of the Aeneid by briefly looking back at the Iliad to see where the story of Aeneas starts, or at least where Homer leaves off and Virgil begins.

In Book 20 of the Iliad, Achilles and Aeneas are battling it out, and Aeneas is getting the worst of it. Poseidon warns the gods that Aeneas must be saved from certain death at the hands of Achilles:

Why should blameless Aeneas suffer so
on others' behalf after all the prayers
and gifts he has sent us gods who hold the skies?
We should lead Aeneas away from death,
because Zeus will be furious if Achilles
kills him now. Aeneas' fate is to live
in order to save the last lineage and stock
of Dardanus, a favorite among the sons
that mortal tempresses have borne to Zeus. 20.297

In Homer's poem it is Aeneas' fate to carry on the Trojan race, and this is where Virgil picks up the thread. Fate is a major theme of the Aeneid -- it is mentioned four times in the first 32 lines (the "proem") alone.

Aeneas' destiny is to carry the household gods to Italy and carry on the Trojan tradition, and Virgil shows this while carrying on the Homeric epic tradition. The similarities between the poems are numerous, and I'm sure we will be discussing some of them, and their differences too.

The first time we see Aeneas he is in despair, wishing that he had died at Troy rather than face death at sea. It's interesting that Virgil first presents his hero -- the son of a goddess -- in this very human way.

But all is not lost. Poseidon comes to the rescue (again), the seas are calmed, and finding safe harbor in Carthage he tells his crew:

We fight through perils and catastrophes
To Latium, where divine fate promises
A peaceful homeland, a new Trojan kingdom. 1. 204

Aeneas is fated to found a new Troy, but it looks like it won't be easy.

One of the things of which I quite enjoy about this group of readings we have had is the way in which we have been given such a full picture of the Trojan war, at least as much as possible when dealing with myth. Throughout all of our recent readings we have seen it from various different perspectives and points of view to have a more whole and complete picture, opposed to just a one sided view of events.

I do not know if it is just a translation question but I have to say I do find Virgil more difficult to read than Homer. For me the Aenieid just reads a bit more slowly and is more tedious, drags on, it is difficult for me at points to pay attention to the story because I keep waiting for something to actually happen. It seems there was more action in Homer's works.

Though one thing I enjoy is seeing the ways in which Virgil was such an influence for Dante, there are a couple of scenes in this book which seem to be strongly reflective of some of the scenes in The Inferno

I'm reading the Aeneid for the first time, and though I loved both the Iliad and the Odyssey, it's been many years since I read them. For one thing, though, in the early going it seems hard for me to get past the fact that Virgil's work is so blatantly derivative, not just for leaning on the background story, and referring back to the details of its narrative, but for so many elements of the presentation... oops, I'm at work... more to comment in future message...

Patrice wrote: "What Virgil is doing, am I right in thinking that he's writing history? He's legitimizing it by grounding it in the Greek epics, by imitating them, but it seems he's pretty much making up the story and calling it history. Were the Romans meant to believe this story? I think there were some myths about a survivor of the Trojan War founding Rome. Just not sure how seriously the Romans took the story.
.."

The Aeneid is often called a "national epic." It is also a foundation story in that it sets out to tell (albeit in mythological terms) how Rome was founded. It differs dramatically from the Homeric poems in that neither of those poems are concerned with "history" as such, at least not in the sense of the founding of Greek civilization.

The matter of "imitation" is one that many readers misunderstand when confronting the Aeneid, especially for the first time. Of course Vergil is drawing overwhelmingly on the raw material of the Homeric epics -- that is what ancient Roman poetic and rhetorical practice requires of him, as well as the very genre itself. Vergil is consciously rivaling Homer, seeking to equal him in greatness, and to do this he plunders Homer's own treasure vault. Be careful not to misjudge what he is doing by way of imitation. In each instance where Vergil "borrows" from Homer, he actually transforms the material into something that is altogether different from Homer, something that is uniquely Roman and characteristically "Vergilian." Indeed, in many ways this is the essence of Vergil's genius and understanding this process will greatly enhance your appreciation for the Aeneid.

It is important to remember that the Romans had no native intellectual or artistic culture. They did not even have what we would call "literature" until the mid 3rd century B.C., and the first "Roman" author, Livius Andronicus, was himself a Greek! So when the Romans (Latins) pushed south into the Italian peninsula, they gradually encountered Greek civilization, including its rich literary traditions. All that Greece stood for: art, rhetoric, drama, philosophy, and especially literature, was entirely absent from the Roman sphere. The Romans realized their own cultural deprivation and simply imported Greek culture into their own lock, stock and barrel.

By connecting the founding of Rome with two monumental Greek epic masterpieces, Vergil is in essence aggrandizing Rome and establishing its legitimacy on the world stage.

Silver wrote: "I do not know if it is just a translation question but I have to say I do find Virgil more difficult to read than Homer..."

Sarah Ruden starts the preface to her translation with this comment:

"I am in awe of scholars who can expertly debate Vergil's political purpose and attitude; I find him difficult just to read."

I did not like this book when I first read it as an undergrad, but I think at least part of the reason was that I had to read it too quickly. I don't find it easy reading at all, but I'm now finding that it gets easier with familiarity. The allusions come to life and minor details take on greater importance.

The story is that Virgil wrote only three lines a day. The work is finely and deliberately crafted, so I would encourage everyone to take it slowly and re-read. Pick it apart. Chase down the allusions and let the poetry come to life for you.

To be honest, I feel a little irritated by what Virgil is doing. The Iliad and the Odyssey feel legit to me.
They were history to the Greeks. What Virgil is doing, am I right in thinking that he's writing history? "

As Thomas noted in his initial post, the idea that Aeneas would continue on and his descendants would rule over a new Troy was known to Homer, and presumably before that. So it wasn't initially a Roman idea, but a Greek idea.

In her introduction to Reading Vergil's Aeneid: An Interpretative Guide, Christine Perkell notes that the Aeneas story has a long history. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite (not Homeric because it was written by him, but Homeric as referring to an era, as for example we talk about Victorian poetry) includes a prohpecy of Aneas's future rule. The story of Aeneas as the founder of Rome dated back to 480 BC, she contends, and Naevius claimed that Romulus was the grandson of Aeneas, thus merging both of the otherwise independent mythological histories of Aeneas and Romulus.

She also points out some significant places where Virgil deviates from the known historical versions of the story (so much is lost that he may have gotten these points from lost versions rather than inventing them himself, of course, though she doesn't really note this), but I'll wait to bring out those points until we get to the books where they appear.

But Virgil has, I think, several purposes. One was certainly to write an epic history of the origins of Rome. But it was also closely related to the turmoil in Rome post Julius Caesar, with some very contemporary political purposes that we should consider as we read it. I would start by noting that (again according to Perkell) the family of the Julii, which included Julius Caesar, had for centuries claimed descent from Aneas, and Julius Caesar claimed both Venus and Aeneas as ancestors. So there was an element of the Aeneas supporting the claim of the Caesars that they represented the culmination of the movement of Roman history.

Perhaps Thomas should open a thread for background and historical issues, since they don't really apply to discussion of specific books, but it's useful perhaps to understand some of the history of the lengthy (more than ten years) and tumultuous period during which Virgil was writing the Aeneid.

Certainly Virgil was following the basic Greek model of epic. (So was Milton for that matter.) For just one example, we note that he starts, classically, in media res.

But to criticize him for that is, IMO, as inappropriate as to criticize Shakespeare for following the basic structure of Greek tragedy.

Thomas wrote: "I did not like this book when I first read it as an undergrad, but I think at least part of the reason was that I had to read it too quickly. I don't find it easy reading at all, but I'm now finding that it gets easier with familiarity. The allusions come to life and minor details take on greater importance. ."

Which you're going to be sure to share with us, right? [g]

Several possibly interesting comments about the first few words of the poem.

First, where as Homer clearly asks the Muse to sing through him, with the implication that he is merely a conduit for the muse, Vigil says cano (sorry I can't include the accent marks) which is the first person singular form of the verb cano, sing. So he is saying not that the muses sing, but "I sing." It is not until line 8 (of the Latin, 13 of Fitzgerald) that he invokes the Muse, and then it isn't in the same spirit. Fitzgerald has it
"tell me the causes now, O Muse,..."
Lewis doesn't even include the word Muse in his translation, though it's clearly there in the Latin Musa.
Dryden has
"O Muse! the causes and the crimes relate"
though it's not clear whether the Muse is to relate TO or THROUGH him.

All this seems to me to represent a substantially different relationship to the Muse as we find in Homer.

Second, look at the first words of each of the three epics. In the Iliad, it's the wrath of Achilles, with wrath being the first word of the poem. In the Odyssey it's tell me, Muse, of the man of many ways of contending. In Virgil, the first word is Armes, arms. Arms and the man I sing. Not the man and his arms, but arms first. Is this significant? Isn't the first word of a poem significant?

Edit: Oops! posted the entry before I included the link.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/t...

As a resource, here's the Perseus Aeneid, the Latin text and, on the right side, you can "load" either the Dryden or the Williams translations. If you click on any word in the Latin text it will take you to a dictionary definition of that word, and you can then click on one of the Lexicon entries (Lewis and Short, or Elementary Lewis) for more details. One way to learn Latin; click through the Aeneid word for word!

... look at the first words of each of the three epics. In the Iliad, it's the wrath of Achilles, with wrath being the first word of the poem. In the Odyssey it's tell me, Muse, of the man of many ways of contending...."

In the first three words of the Aeneid, Vergil acknowledges his debt to both the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Latin reads "Arma virumque cano" = "Arms and the man I sing."

Arma = the Iliad
virum = the man (the first word of the Odyssey is "the man"), hence the Odyssey.

Thus in the first two words, before he has even set down a main verb, the tribute to both of the Greek epics is established.

Also, Vergil writes "I sing." He does not, significantly, ask for the muse to sing through him, as in each one of the Homeric epics. Hence an innovation, a departure from the traditional formula, and a shift to a new kind of epic.

Patrice wrote: "I thought that the Greeks considered the Iliad and the Odyssey to be their history. Didn't they believe them to be true? I also thought that, in a way, they were describing the birth of "Greece" ..."

The Homeric epics set forth events that the classical Greeks believed to be true, thus "historical" in a vague sense, but the texts of the poems themselves nowhere reflect a historical consciousness, that is to say, an attempt by the poet to explain the "birth of Greece" or the development or progression of its institutions. While the Iliad and Odyssey are replete with genealogical references and show a fixation on the origins of particular heroes, the poet is completely unconcerned with explaining how things got to be the way they are at the time the events of his poems are narrated.

And, as Cassandra has aptly pointed out, Aeneas is not at all a Homeric hero, but something completely different.

It's very helpful that you are raising these questions at the outset, because the function of the Aeneid as a historical epic is crucial -- it is one of the most important ways in which the poem achieves something that is completely original and absolutely different from Homer.

Patrice wrote: "It also reminds me of the way Americans attempted to imitate European culture in painting and literature. Then, all at once, we broke away and created an American culture."

This is a brilliant point -- in fact, there is one reading of the Aeneid that sees in Aeneas' westward journey to found a new civilization (from the ashes of a collapsed nation) a prototype of our own founding.

This reading is seriously bolstered by the Framers and their obsession with Roman political institutions when they drafted our own Constitution. (Sorry for the digression.)

I studied music as an undergraduate (I trained as a singer) and as a result my approach to literature has often been through the "back door." Art song prompted me to read poetry and my introduction to many novels and plays has often been through opera.

The Aeneid is proving to me no exception. This read has prompted me to pull out one of my many recordings of Berlioz' Les Troyens. Berlioz seems like an odd choice for a classical work. In many ways he personally exemplified the excesses of the Romantic age (he saw an English actress performing Shakespeare in a language he did not speak, and succumbing to "love at first sight" pursued and actually married her) but he finds a classical voice for this work. Les Troyens is of Wagnerian length (4 hours of music) and difficult to cast but I believe that it is Berlioz' masterpiece. I am so far enjoying the work that inspired it.

I am reading the Frangles translation and it reads beautifully.

Everyman wrote: "Which you're going to be sure to share with us, right? [g]"

Be careful what you ask for! Except for the Background and Historical thread, which is a great idea, and it has been duly posted.

The Aeneid is a national poem, which the emperor Augustus had asked Virgil to write to legitimize Roman imperialism and his own family,the Gens Iulia (descendend from Iulo, the son of the hero). Virgil's work is profoundly different from Homer's, Aeneas is exactly the opposite of heroes like Achilles and Odysseus. He is totally a Roman man who follows the values ​​of the mos maiorum and puts the founding of Rome in the first place. Enea is a demigod, but he preserves the uncertainties, weaknesses and inconsistencies of men.

Cassandra wrote: "Aeneas is exactly the opposite of heroes like Achilles and Odysseus. "

I think we'll see more of this, but for starters, it appears that whereas the Greek heroes were self-oriented -- that is, they fought basically for their own honor, glory, and booty, Aeneas is task oriented to a task beyond himself. More on this as the poem proceeds!

max wrote: "While the Iliad and Odyssey are replete with genealogical references and show a fixation on the origins of particular heroes, the poet is completely unconcerned with explaining how things got to be the way they are at the time the events of his poems are narrated."

It's interesting to compare the songs of Iopas at the end of Book 1 with the songs of Demodocus in the Odyssey. Demodocus sings about heroes (this is where the curious story about the argument between Achilles and Odysseus pops up), much as Homer does himself. But Iopas sings about the sun and the moon, clouds and rain, and how people and animals came to be. I'm not sure if Iopas is meant to represent Virgil, as Demodocus is often thought to represent Homer, but the subjects of the songs might tell us something about the difference between Homeric culture and the culture of Virgil's Rome.

Patrice wrote: "It also reminds me of the way Americans attempted to imitate European culture in painting and literature. Then, all at once, we broke away and created an American culture. " ..."

Okay, fair as a meditation, but can one work do such a thing? Maybe reading to the end will demonstrate it, but can a book be imitative, and at the same time deviate radically and create a culture? It's not the same as observing the progress of several authors and transition over time of a cultural movement.

By the way, I'd say American literary culture never came to equal, or even nearly rival European literary culture. There have been a few (very few) brilliant exceptions, but in any case I view artists as individuals, regardless of whether they were later embraced as cultural icons, or even whether they were driven to found cultures. E.g., Dostoevsky self-consciously strove to create a Russian literature, but his brilliance was individual, radical, innovative, and is only "Russian" because the Russians later embraced him for his unique brilliance and fame as an author. He did not create a literature by being imitative.

I'm not condemning the Aeneid outright here, I haven't even read it through, but with all the talk of radical differences and completely opposite nature of the characters, I think we're washing over the obvious enormous similarities, and clearly derivative elements of the text.

I have no sacred cows, either. I'm not saying no one should dare try to continue Homer's legacy... Virgil is incredibly audacious to do so, and perhaps he's admired for taking up such a task and succeeding with it. But don't you think it's fair to say that Virgil, fundamentally, is the most renowned author of fan fiction?

We have the hero buffeted from place to place on a multi-year "odyssey" to reach his destination. We have the opening call upon the muses for inspiration. We have the obsession with feasts, meat on spits, vessels, wines mixed and unmixed. We have the in medias res beginning, with the heroic story to be recounted through story telling. We have the magical mists, the direct intervention of the gods who randomly disguise themselves, though there are telltale signs to their identity as divine beings, only to fully disclose themselves not long after... I reckon there are so many other things which could be identified as derivative, and this is in only the first chapter/book.

Then again, where else but in the first book should such similarities present themselves, if the author wants to present his work as a legitimate extension of the original? Well, plenty to ponder.

Ooh... by the way, I'm no expert, but I'd say that Shakespeare's work (mentioned elsewhere in the thread) is certainly classically inspired, but isn't strictly imitative, derivative, or as similar in terms of tone, artistic scope, character... I'm not talking about specific language or phrasing, as I have no access to the language of the classics, or understanding of their poetic forms... I'm talking about the larger scale tone and direction of the piece, its characters, themes, and narration.

Thomas wrote: "I'm not sure if Iopas is meant to represent Virgil, as Demodocus is often thought to represent Homer, but the subjects of the songs might tell us something about the difference between Homeric culture and the culture of Virgil's Rome. ."

That's a fascinating point. Iopas' song is only five verses long, but as usual in Vergil, it is a meaty five lines. It is a cosmogony. With its references to sun, moon, rain, lightning (ignes), constellations and the seasons, it seems to allude to the Georgics, the didactic poem on agriculture that Vergil published before he composed the Aeneid. In that sense you are exactly right: Iopas is a voice for what Vergil has himself expressed in the Georgics. (This time he is imitating himself, rather than Homer.)

The Aeneid is a sort of encyclopedia of all preceding classical literature. Vergil draws not only on Homer, but also on numerous other ancient writers, especially the poet-philosopher Lucretius (Iopas song' also has a Lucretian ring to it), the Argonautica of Apollonius, the Greek tragedians, Catullus, and Ennius, an early Roman epic writer whose work only exists in fragments.

Zadignose wrote: "I'm not condemning the Aeneid outright here, I haven't even read it through, but with all the talk of radical differences and completely opposite nature of the characters, I think we're washing over the obvious enormous similarities, and clearly derivative elements of the text..."

It is important to bear in mind that all classical authors, both Greek and Roman, approached their compositions with notions about "originality" that are very, very different from ours. Vergil is not a Romantic author who is driven by a desire to break literary rules, conventions, and readers' expectations about genre (epic). To the contrary, the highest form of artistic success (as understood by the tastemakers of Vergil's day) could only be achieved by taking raw material from a predecessor and creatively refashioning or adapting the material into something that is actually quite different. In that sense, it is "new" and "original." The Roman rhetorical doctrine of "imitatio" compelled Vergil to write the Aeneid as he did -- any other approach would have been deemed a failure.

If you read Homer carefully, then read Vergil carefully, it becomes clear that even as he makes use of one epic convention after another, Vergil transcends Homer entirely. There is no slavish imitation in the sense of rewriting or stealing whole phrases in some kind of verbatim transfer. In this context, the word "derivative" is perhaps unfair, suggesting as it does an author's inability to be original. I guess it is a paradox, but in imitating Homer, Vergil is boldly original.

Another point that is relevant here: Homer's style is "paratactic," meaning his poetry consists of a series of basically independent clauses tacked one onto another. Vergil is "hypotactic," meaning that his sentences usually are structured with a high level of subordination. Some call Homer "oral" while Vergil is called "literary." The poetic language of Vergil is completely different from Homer -- not simply because it is Latin, but because it has a density and complexity, a richness and imagistic intensity that is uniquely Vergilian.

Finally, there is the whole matter of what scholars today call "intertextuality." A great deal of the pleasure of reading and appreciating Vergil is understanding exactly where he is taking on Homer and how he has incorporated the material of his great master to make points that are fundamentally Roman. Vergil's audience was of course intimately familiar with every line of the Iliad and Odyssey. Reading the Aeneid without having studied Homer carefully is like jumping into a pool and trying to swim without ever having had a lesson.

Around I275-280, Virgil writes

"Then Romulus his grandsire's throne shall gain,
Of martial tow'rs the founder shall become,
The people Romans call, the city Rome.
To them no bounds of empire I assign,
Nor term of years to their immortal line."

(quoting from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/228/22..., I'm reading it in German)

I'm interested in your interpretations of the last sentence quoted. I currently see two possible ways of reading it:

1) It is a prophecy that the Roman Empire will be unlimited with respect to time and space. According to this reading, the sentence is basically praising the Empire and its future.

2) It says no further prophecies are given for the Roman Empire. Virgil maybe didn't want to give any predictions of the future in the form of a prophecy, or he wanted to say that the Gods don't restrict the fate of the Empire and shaping the future of it is up to its people.

What do you think?

Patrice wrote: "... while Vergil is using the Iliad and the Odyssey as starting points, he IS writing in another language for a different audience. Yet you say that his audience would have known the originals. Are you saying that they would have been able to read Greek?"

Yes, absolutely. Vergil knew Greek, as did educated Romans in general -- to the same degree that educated English-speaking peoples were expected to know French in, say, the 19th century.

Hanskoebi wrote:
"Then Romulus his grandsire's throne shall gain,
Of martial tow'rs the founder shall become,
The people Romans call, the city Rome.
To them no bounds of empire I assign,
Nor term of years to their immortal line."

This long speech by Jupiter is one of the most important speeches in the poem. Jupiter reassures Venus that Aeneas' destiny is certain and will give rise to the Roman Empire, a nation which will be unbounded either by time or space. It is a "family tree" that takes us from Aeneas and Lavinia (3 year rule in Latium) to Ascanius (30 year rule in Alba Longa, the town in Latium where Ascanius / Iulus establishes his rule) to the 300 year period of the "Alban Kings" (descendants of Aeneas and Ascanius), culminating in the birth of Romulus by his mother Rhea Silvia and Mars, the Roman god of war. It then climaxes in the rise of Augustus himself, the first emperor and patron of Vergil's poem.

According to scholars of Roman religion, Mars was the chief deity in the early Roman pantheon. He was a god of war and also, apparently, agriculture. His primacy is revealed by the fact that the Roman calendar originally began not with January but with March, named after Mars.

The 333 year period from Aeneas to Romulus is a poetic approximation. The Trojan War was traditionally thought to have ended in 1184 B.C. Rome's legendary founding by Romulus was in 753 B.C. (A date which itself was extrapolated backward by Varro, a Roman writer from around Vergil's time). So Vergil is off by a hundred years but it doesn't matter -- he is a poet, not a historian.

The speech is amazing in the way that Jupiter traces Rome's origins from a purely mythological inception down into the actual reality of contemporary Roman history. This illustrates what we have been discussing about the poem as a national epic or foundation epic.

Of course Vergil is here glorifying Rome, its divine origin and destiny to be the sole master of the civilized world. This theme will resonate throughout the poem and is reiterated in several key places.

One of the fascinating aspects of the poem is the role of prophecy and the manner in which Aeneas' destiny in Italy is gradually disclosed by a series of increasingly specific prophetic utterances by different characters in the poem.

max wrote: "The Roman rhetorical doctrine of "imitatio" compelled Vergil to write the Aeneid as he did -- any other approach would have been deemed a failure.
"

I heard the other night about the poet Ennius, a Roman composer of epic poems who pre-dates Vergil by a century or so. We only have fragments of his work, apparently, but he starts one of his works by explaining to the audience that he had a dream in which Homer revealed to him that his soul (Homer's, that is) had migrated into the soul of Ennius. This was after Homer had been reincarnated as a peacock. Temporarily, of course, before he was reborn as Ennius.

That's validation -- not only is he paying homage to the poet, but he is the poet. I'm not sure what to make of the peacock though.

vs 2 : "Italiam fato profugus Laviniaque venit".

Virgil's Italy wasn't what we called Italy today.
The ancient Greeks called Italy the southern part of the peninsula,and the Romans expanded the name of Italy to the territory up to the river Rubicon.

Greeks named Italy after Italo,a hero and a wise king of the southern part of the peninsula wich originally was called Ausonia. Yeah,I'm still in Venice...and we're full of tourists!

As a first time Aeneid reader, I am wondering about the significance approaching Carthage and Queen Dido while veiled in cloud and mist by Venus. Before this Venus foretells they will be well received and this is born out soon enough. Why is all the stealth necessary? Is it just a precaution against Juno since it is her territory or is there something more to their "mist-ical" approach?

I also notice Aeneas is demonstrably upset with his "unconventional" mother despite appreciating her supernatural aid. It may make the contrast between a son's relationship with his mother and a son's relationship to his father an interesting one.

David wrote: "I also notice Aeneas is demonstrably upset with his "unconventional" mother despite appreciating her supernatural aid. It may make the contrast between a son's relationship with his mother and a son's relationship to his father an interesting one. "

This scene has intrigued many readers and provoked many interpretations. Veiling Aeneas and Achates in a cloak of invisibility is a motif that goes back to Homer (Athena similarly protects Odysseus as he makes his way into the city of the Phaeacians). Of course, the disguised goddess motif is also a Homeric convention, as Athena appears in disguise on various occasions -- in Phaeacia, for example, she appears to Odysseus as a young girl holding a water pitcher.

Not to dodge the question of why Venus is disguised here (or Aeneas' frustrated reaction), but the speech she gives to Aeneas is extremely important. It has been called a "Euripidean prologue," meaning the speech is very similar to the way in which a character typically appears at the beginning of a play by Euripides to explain to the audience the setting and how the action will play out. Here, Venus explains Dido's background -- the murder of her beloved husband, Sychaeaus, by her own brother, Pygmalion, and her flight from Phoenicia to reach the shores of N. Africa where she has established a new kingdom.

Indeed, Aeneas' relationship with Dido as further played out in Book 4 is a Greek tragedy embedded within the epic, and thus a "dramatic" prologue is entirely appropriate at this stage. As will be seen in Book 4, there are other significant borrowings from Euripides, whom Vergil obviously admired.

The facts that we learn about Dido in this speech -- the first information we acquire about the great queen -- are essential in evaluating her character. She has lost a spouse (like Aeneas); she is an exile (like Aeneas), she has established a new kingdom overseas (as Aeneas is destined to do). Further on in Book 1, we see her in her capacity as chief executive of the city of Carthage, judge and lawgiver, construction manager overseeing the new building within the city, and magnanimous host of the shipwrecked Trojans.

Here I will confess that I am a great admirer of Dido. She is one of the immortal characters of all literature: noble, generous, intelligent, brave, and above all, passionate. Over the years in my Latin classes, the relationship of Aeneas and Dido is one that has generated endless conversations and discussions about love, duty, fidelity, honor, and the destructive ends of unbridled passion.

max wrote: "Here I will confess that I am a great admirer of Dido. She is one of the immortal characters of all literature: noble, generous, intelligent, brave, and above all, passionate. Over the years in my Latin classes, the relationship of Aeneas and Dido is one that has generated endless conversations and discussions about love, duty, fidelity, honor, and the destructive ends of unbridled passion.
"

I find myself rather conflicted about Dido. I do say that at the start, when we are first introduced to her I held a great deal of admiration for her. And I found that living in such a patriarchal age her strength as a queen and the power she commands were quite impressive. But not to get ahead of things I will simply say that I found it difficult to be sympathetic towards her later actions in regards to her relationship with Aeneas.

max wrote: "It is important to bear in mind that all classical authors, both Greek and Roman, approached their compositions with notions about "originality" that are very, very different from ours. Vergil is not a Romantic author who is driven by a desire to break literary rules, conventions, and readers' expectations about genre (epic). To the contrary, the highest form of artistic success (as understood by the tastemakers of Vergil's day) could only be achieved by taking raw material from a predecessor and creatively refashioning or adapting the material into something that is actually quite different. In that sense, it is "new" and "original."


This is the literary principle that prevailed even into Shakespeare's time. Almost all of his works (there are at most two or three exceptions) were derivatives of other, earlier works; his creativity was considered not to be in creating an original plot or set of characters, but in doing something more creative with existing material.

Patrice wrote: "When Virgil writes of "Italy" is he writing of what we call Italy today? Is that the translator's word? I thought Italy was a new concept."

The Romans, as I understand it, called the peninsula below the Alps Italy, but the term was geographical, not nationalistic. That is, there was the land area called Italy in Roman times (as France was called Gaul),but there was no nation of Italy (or of France, for that matter) until much later.

David wrote: "As a first time Aeneid reader, I am wondering about the significance approaching Carthage and Queen Dido while veiled in cloud and mist by..."

Just speculation, but it allows Aeneas to approach Dido without being stopped or questioned by guards or citizens, and allows a sort of magical appearance out of nowhere -- a sort of David Copperfield "Last time you saw me was on stage, now here I am up in the air on a motorcycle." Certainly Dido should have had some serious questions for her guards as to how this stranger got this far into her presence without anybody knowing it!

David wrote: "Why is all the stealth necessary? Is it just a precaution against Juno since it is her territory or is there something more to their "mist-ical" approach?"

A good question. In addition to what Max said (msg 44) I would add that Aeneas has his own history of being shrouded in safety by the gods. He is saved by Aphrodite (Venus) when Diomedes is about to kill him in Book 5 of the Iliad, and then again he is saved by Poseidon when he is fighting Achilles in Book 20.

Virgil says that Venus shrouds Aeneas and Achates so "no one could see them or touch them. No one could ask why they were there or hold them back." Instead of confronting the inhabitants they are free to wander into the city and observe that amazing frieze. Their "invisibility" suspends the action for a time and allows a dramatic pause. But it is interesting that as soon as they ache to break free of the cloud, the cloud disappears as if on command.

Silver wrote: "And I found that living in such a patriarchal age her strength as a queen and the power she commands were quite impressive. ..."

Dux femina facti (1.364) ... "A woman was the leader of the deed." A famous line wherein Vergil pays tribute to Dido, the uber-femina.

Patrice wrote: "Wasn't Dido based on Cleopatra?"

With the creation of Dido we get a rich taste of Vergil's brilliance in refashioning a number of literary and mythological archetypes. She is Calypso, Circe, (not Nausikaa), Medea, Ariadne ... and yes, of course, Cleopatra, the Egyptian queen whose scandalous liaison with Marc Antony came to an end when both were defeated by Augustus at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C.

Vergil also uses the character of Dido to create a mythological basis for the deep enmity that existed historically between the Romans and Carthaginians culminating in the Punic (from Punicus = Phoenicus = Phoenician) Wars, 3 in number from 264 to 146 B.C.

I loved how -- Max, I think -- pointed out how Virgil referenced both the Iliad and the Odyssey when the wrote "the arms and man"...!

Then I read with interest how Virgil brought the Muse in differently than Homer had....and yet...in both instances, were looking towards the Muse to explain the anger that was going on.

@1 Everyman wrote"

The first time we see Aeneas he is in despair, wishing that he had died at Troy rather than face death at sea. It's interesting that Virgil first presents his hero -- the son of a goddess -- in this very human way.

Another point where the two poems walk together a little: Odysseus, too, when the storm at sea was raging and destroying his ships said something alone the same lines as Aeneas: "If only I had died back at Troy..." or words to that effect.

OK...I looked it up:

Odysseus:

"Three and four times blessed are the Danaans who perished/ in broad Troy bringing favor to the sons of Atreus. / How I wish I had died and met my fate/ on that day when innumerable Trojans threw their bronze-tipped spears/ at me around the corpse of Peleus's son./ I would have received my funeral honors and the Achaeans would remember my glory./ Now it is my fate to die a pitful death.

I was intriqued when Aeneas said, "If only I had gone down under your right hand--Diomedes, strongest Greek afield--"

I don't remember the details>>> Was Achillies not on the field when this fight took place? Or did Aeneas consider Diomedes to be a stronger fighter than Achilles? Or, perhaps, is Aeneas designating Dioemedes as the strongest Greek...so that Aeneas looks better?

And I think there might be something to that last aspect.

It seems to me that Virgil, through Aeneas, is pointing out the importance of power. The necessity of power. {Would not Augustus need an intellectual defense of his power?]


At about line 59: Juno asks, [If there isn't a perception that Juno has power] " Who will revere the power of Juno after ths--lay gifts on my alter, lift his hands in prayer?"

And again at about line 70, There is a section on King Aeolus who "rules the winds, brawling to break free, howling in full gale force"... And The Aeneid speaks of how if King Aeolus did not hold the winds in check, "surely they'd blow the world away.....

Fearing this, the almighty Father" empowered a king to rein them in.

Might not Virgil be alluding here to Augustus? Might it not be a defense of Augustus holding the incredible power he now holds?

Bcause just as the winds, if they aren't coltrolled by a strong King Aeolus, can wreck the world, so too, recent Roman history would show, that without a strong ruler {and one appointed by the gods], the armies of the smaller men, the factions, would---and had---wreck the world, and ruin the Roman lands with civil wars?

Indeed, Virgil describes the unruled, undisicplined winds as armies: About line 98: "...and out charge the winds/ ... like armies on attack.....tearing through the earth....death, everywhere/ men facing instasnt death."

These are insightful observations. Aeolus is a kind of subordinate magistrate to Jupiter, and yes, there are political and military metaphors in abundance. The simile immediately following the calming of the waters by Jupiter has attracted much attention. It compares Jupiter to a politician who calms a rioting mob and seems very clearly to suggest Augustus, who emerged victorious after a long period of bloody civil war that tore Roman society apart.

The simile is unusual in that most epic similes compare something to phenomena in the natural world -- a storm, flood, wild animal or raging river. Here we have just the opposite: an occurrence in nature (the storm that has shipwrecked the Trojans) is compared to a political leader who is "revered on account of his virtue ("pietas") and good deeds." (line 151)

The Latin word "pietas" is impossible to translate. It means dutiful reverence or loyalty towards one's family, country and the gods. It is a Roman ideal that Aeneas embodies (he is often described with the adjectival form of the word, "pius"). The polarity between "pietas" and "furor" (madness, frenzy, destructive passion) is a major theme throughout the entire poem. In Vergil's view, civilization -- a stable and ordered society centered around the moral ideal of pietas -- is constantly threatened by the forces of disorder and chaos. Throughout the poem Vergil explores the ways in which individual characters (both human and divine) are victimized (and victimize others) by their destructive passions, while others (such as Aeneas) are ruled by reason and a sense of social responsibility.

In this connection, mention should be made of Juno, whose intense hatred of the Trojans is strongly highlighted in the beginning of Book 1. She is the chief antagonist in the poem; in her irrational fury, her jealous rage, she seeks to thwart the Trojans at every turn. Some have read the storm scene as a kind of natural manifestation or extension of Juno's anger.

The epic genre was at the top of the hierarchy of literary forms in the ancient world, because it is through the medium of an epic poem that the most serious and compelling ideas about civilization can be expressed. Just as Homer's poems embodied the ideals that were most cherished by the Greeks, Vergil wrote the Aeneid to serve as a repository of Rome's most fundamentally important values. I don't mean to harp on this point, it's just that it is easy to overlook the fact that the epic genre is much more than a long story involving colorful episodes of action, daring and warfare.

Thomas wrote: "I would add that Aeneas has his own history of being shrouded in safety by the gods. He is saved by Aphrodite (Venus) when Diomedes is about to kill him in Book 5 of the Iliad, and then again he is saved by Poseidon when he is fighting Achilles in Book 20. "

The fact there is a history of these clouds obscuring the characters seems apparent in the characters themselves. I think Virgil means to impress his audience with the cloud but not his characters.

In fact when Aeneas suddenly appears before the queen, instead of being much surprised or even alarmed, she just thinks he is cute.

David wrote: "The fact there is a history of these clouds obscuring the characters seems apparent in the characters themselves. I think Virgil means to impress his audience with the cloud but not his characters."

Aeneas is so far not impressive for his heroic quality, at least when compared with Achilles and Odysseus. In the first book he is surprisingly human when compared with Homer's heroes. He is terrified and despondent for the most part, even a bit whiny: "But Venus had enough of his complaints, and so she interrupted his lament." (1.548 Mandelbaum) But he keeps the faith and perseveres, and most importantly he continues to lead his men and inspires them with a hope that he doesn't seem quite sure of himself. I find this to be admirable, and very human. It's a stark contrast to Homer's heroes, who are impressive individuals but for the most part poor leaders.

Thomas wrote: "David wrote: "It's a stark contrast to Homer's heroes, who are impressive individuals but for the most part poor leaders."

While I have to admit I have not formed as strong of an opinion for Aeneas as I have for some of the Greek heroes, for better or worse, and perhaps part of it is the fact that he is in some regards less impressive and so he has not made that big of an impact on me. I agree it is quite interesting seeing the contrast between the significant differences between the heroes.

I have to wonder is that just the Roman influence? or is it a difference in the Trojan culture vs the Greek culture? or a little bit of both?

Thomas wrote: "In Homer's poem it is Aeneas' fate to carry on the Trojan race, and this is where Virgil picks up the thread. Fate is a major theme of the Aeneid -- it is mentioned four times in the first 32 lines (the "proem") alone.

.."

OK, Thomas, so I've tried to be aware of "Fate" as I was reading. And I'm somewhat confused as to what Virgil's position as Fate was.

Long.

(view spoiler)[

I tend to think of Fate as ... pre-set ... as something almost unalterable. But it doesn't seem to me that that is Virgil's view of Fate.

In Book I at least, there is a suggestion that Fate might need a human assist.

Aeneas. Fitzgerald writes: "He came to Italy by destiny" (line 3); but Fagles writes: "he was the first to flee the coast of Troy, / destined to reach Lavinian shores and Italian soil" (2-3).

Fleeing has such a pejoritive connotation. And then, too, Aeneas is THE FIRST to flee.

If Aeneas is indeed "fleeing" that would seem to suggest that Aeneas himself was involved in this action--even if the gods kept an eye out for him and kept him from being killed outright. Doesn't one have to wonder whether the gods put the implulse to flee into him? [That looks so bad for humans.] Or whether it's more the case that the gods knew that Aeneas was going to flee anyway...and so his Fate was the result of his own actions???

My sense is that Homer was more inclined to assign outcomes and excuses for actions to the gods.

But Virgil, it seems to me, shows men and deities perhaps trying harder to determine actions themselves.

Fagles, around 150-165: Neptune nominally has control of the seas. He claims "Power over the sea and ruthless trident is mine, / not his--it's mine my lot, by destiny." Yet the East- and Westwinds have insolently raised storms--without the blessing of Neptune--in an attempt to capsize or shipwreck or drown Aeneas.

Fagles, about 235, Aeneas has hunted the deer and given meat to his men and then he tries to give them heart: "Call up your courage again. Dsmiss your grief and fear....Save your strength for better times to come."

Yes, Aeneas holds before them the promise that "Fate holds out / a homeland," but first he reminds them that they can make a difference in their own lives.

Fagles, about line 487, Aeneas's mother, Venus, tells him, "Now off you go, move on, wherever the path leads you, steer your steps." And to me, that suggests that although there IS a path that Fate has foretold, that there must be action taken by the man, too...he must steer his own steps.

Fagles, about line 332, regarding the Romans: Jupiter says, "On them I set no limits, space, or time. I have granted them power..." I can almost read this as Virgil saying that destiny, that Fate has brought the Romans to where they are now...with Augusus Caesar...but that NOW, there are no more limits...no more Fate...now men are making their own futures. ?? I know... I can read it that other way as well.... that the "no limits" means that the Roman empire is fated to stand and expand for all time.

EDIT ADDED: in going back and re-reading, I see that I was likely greatly influenced in this thought by Hanskoebi at post 26.


Lastly, Fagles, about line 557: Aeneas sees Priam on the carvings and exclaims: "There's Priam, look! Even here, merit will have its true reward." Merit as opposed to fate?

OK, one additional lastly: Those clouds. Fagles, about line 620: "So, cloaked in folds of mist, they hide their feelings..."

And the cloud was put there by his mother, a goddess... to assure him of his fate.

But then Fagles, about line 694, there's a change.

"Spirits lifting at Dido's welcome, brave Achates / and captain Aeneas had long chafed to break free / of the mist" {???they longed to act on their own??? To make their own decisions??? To feel their feelings??? To be self-directed individuals???

"and now Achates spurs Aeneas on: 'Son of Venus, what feelings are rising in you now?"

"He'd barely ended when all at once the mist / around them parted, melting into the open air, / and there Aeneas stood, clear in the light of day. / His head, his shoulders, the man was like a god."

So what I see is Aeneas chafing at being directed by his mother the goddess, by fate, and he let's his own feelings come to the fore, and his determination to act on his own is what causes the cloud (the goddess control) to dissapate.

Edit added. Also, Juno [Fagles about line 45]. She says "the Fates bar my way." But she won't accept that as an absolute.

(hide spoiler)]

Patrice wrote: "I thought Aeneas was fated way back in the Iliad. It was said that he would escape Troy and found a new Troy somewhere. That's why Virgil chose him to be the subject of the poem.

And it seemed..."

Hi, Patrice. Yes, from Homer's Iliad: Aineias "is destined to survive, that the generation of Dardanus shall not perish...and the might of Aineias shall reign over the Trojans, and his sons' son, who shall be born of their seed thereafter."

Apparently a number of Greek and Roman writers over the years developed stories about Aeneas.

One article I browsed said that Homer, of course, was the poet that writers revered, so rewriting The Iliad and The Odyssey would be the challenge to take. Also, suggested, and I thought this idea interesting, that Virgil would might have chosen to expand on the story of Aeneas because through Aeneas Rome's history would then extend back as far as the time of the Trojan War;
{EDIT ADDED: I'm going back and rereading posts. I see that Max basically said much of this already at post 6.}

and that in expanding the story of Aeneas, who was instrumental in founding Rome, Virgil could balance the fierce war legends of Romulus, (who was a son of Mars), with an emphasis on pietas. Hoping that Rome's way forward might be more peaceful than her past.


And you're right, Juno couldn't stop Fate from unfolding. But my memory of The Iliad was that the characters (Agamemnon specifically comes to mind) attributed much more to Fate...oh, it was the gods that made me do that...

And in The Iliad, by and large, the goddess had Zeus's permission to fight the Trojans against the Greeks...and when Zeus said enough, they obeyed him.

I could be mis-remembering, but I'm thinking that in the Iliad, that when a goddess wanted something different than Zeus wanted, they tried to go around him, sneakily. Here in The Aeneid (or at least Book 1...What do I know of the rest? ...) Juno seems to want to directly go against Zeus's wishes.

And Aeneas, 'though he might wish the gods had let him die beneath the walls of Troy, doesn't go around blaming everything on the gods. Maybe in will in Book 2.

So perhaps I'm imagining...lol...I've been trying to pay attention to Fate and how Virgil might have written it differently than Homer...and what that might say about the two different societies.

I like your analogy about the weather ... the stockbroker, etc. And yet...do you think they hold?

Because the prophecy about Aeneas wasn't about what his actions along the way [his choices] would be. The prophecy was about the large result of his life. (the continuation of the Trojan line). Or am I misreading?

So...it would be like having a prophecy that you were going to end up at the picnic... And whether it rained and how you reacted to the rain would be up to you...those details you might be able to change. What you wouldn't be able to change would be your being there at that picnic spot.

So even in the case of Aeneas he has to end up where Fate has decreed. He has -- seemingly -- no choice in that.

Anyway...I'll try to think about that as I read forward.

Patrice wrote: "

"oh it was the gods that made me do that"? What do you mean there? Fate is different from the gods, right?
There are 3 Fates if I remember correctly. The gods ..."

You make a good point. That Fate IS something different than simply the decree of the gods.

I had thought that Aeneas survived Troy because the Dardanus line was beloved of the gods.

But it's Aeneas Fate or destiny to survive Troy.

So if he survives because the gods love his line, do the gods retroactively influence Fate---at least at times?

But as you say, even Zeus can't go against Fate.

And what choices CAN a man make?

It makes my head go round and round!

Someone above has mentioned Aeneas' sense of "duty."

I wanted to bring up laws....not arbitrary whims or simple desires of those in power, but laws which were defined by a sense a justice, or what is right and what is wrong.

In Homer, as I remember, there were allusions to what might be "right" ... but "right" was defined as one's due. Did Homer's characters discuss "justice" at all?

Virgil's Aeneid speaks of laws. A Roman ideal? A more basic Roman concept?

Fagles, about 610: Dido approaches her throne. "Here as she handed down / decrees and laws to her people..."

Fagles, about 630: There is a possible suggestion that it was due to Dido's sense of justice that she was "empowered by Jove to found / [her] new city here and curb rebellious tribes / with [her] sense of justice"


654: "at least respect the gods. They know right from wrong."


658: "Aeneas...none more just"

Adelle wrote: "Someone above has mentioned Aeneas' sense of "duty." I wanted to bring up laws....not arbitrary whims or simple desires of those in power, but laws which were defined by a sense a justice..."

A highly sophisticated legal system and effective government were among Rome's greatest and most enduring contributions to Western civilization. They invented the secret ballot, the veto, voting by centuries (the prototype of our Electoral College) as well as the concept of checks and balances (which was adopted wholesale by the Framers). The sanctity of private property, the supremacy of a constitutional form of government, individual liberty: these we owe to their genius for political organization and administration. The concept of civic virtue was very much a living reality for the Romans.

I don't want to issue a spoiler, but will say there is a very famous scene in the middle of the poem where Vergil explicitly pays tribute to exactly these qualities of the Roman character.

In casting Dido as a lawgiver, Vergil is enhancing her stature and in a sense "Romanizing" her (the description of what is actually being built in Carthage also sounds distinctively Roman).

The Romans were profoundly traditional and also religious people who looked to established precedent and the accumulated wisdom of their ancestors for guidance in so many aspects of their political life.

I think that when we read the Aeneid with these facts in mind, it can really enhance our appreciation for what Vergil is doing.

Adelle wrote: "...Did Homer's characters discuss 'justice' at all?..."

Well, it isn't exactly "discussing" justice, but the central theme of The Iliad is usually commenced with "the wrath of Achilles", i.e., a very human response to injustice and what can transpire from that.

And of course the Odyssey is overtly concerned with justice -- namely, payback for the arrogant suitors.

I have to lean towards Lily's post. In The Iliad there was the wrath of Achilles. Achilles at his core felt he had been treated unfairly. But, the primary resulting action he took was...inaction...he straight out told Agamemnon what he thought was wrong...and he proclaimed his refusal to participate in their (Agamemnon's....the Greeks') system. He didn't really seem to be imposing any active, direct punishment on the Greeks. What he wanted was for Agamemnon to play by the rules that were already in existence. Or so it seems to me.



I had to google "justice," and then "the difference between justice and revenge."

"basically, revenge is done to satisfy the party who suffered the wrongdoing, while justice is done for the sake of putting a semblance of fairness to society. Another good way of stating the key differences between the two, is that justice is what should be done, while revenge is what you think should be done"


http://www.differencebetween.net/lang...

Maybe having the sense that the other parties' behavior is " not right" is a primitive recognition necessary prior to any discussion or implementTion of "justice." i don't mean simply "not right" because the injured party personally feel it's "not right" towards themselves only; but when the injured party feels such behavior is "not right" because it goes against the unspoken rules society has accepted. Which is where Achilles was...protesting not specifically his loss of Breises (spelling?)... But protesting Agamemnon's breaking the basic rules they were all supposedly agreed to and which were supposedly in effect.



Apologies for wandering so far off from The Aeneid.

Thank you, Max, for post 69 regarding the importance of Roman law.

And I especially appreciated the info on Dido....how Virgil Romanized her, how he made her more worthy in the eyes of his Roman readers.