Classics and the Western Canon discussion

The second book of the Aeneid is somewhat reminiscent of the Iliad, with its focus on the battle and aftermath of the siege of Troy. The third book follows Aeneas as he makes a journey like that of Odysseus, bouncing from Thrace to Delos to Crete and onward in search of a new home. His destiny is different than that of Odysseus, but his path is similar. He must overcome some of the same obstacles -- Aeneas is warned about Scylla and Charibdis, and he encounters one of Odysseus' crew, Achaemenides, left behind as Odysseus flees Polyphemos the Cyclops.

Achemenides approaches Aeneas as a former enemy, but now he is a suppliant, very much like Sinon is said to have approached the Trojans with his deception about the gift horse. Achaemenides halts in terror at the sight of Aeneas, but then decides that he would rather die at the hands of the Trojans than live in fear of Polyphemos. You'd think the Trojans would have learned from their experience with Sinon, but instead they take pity on Achaemenides.

The journey of Aneeas, with his father and son, is similar to the Odyssey, but he appears to have a much bigger heart than Odysseus. It is interesting that Aeneas is out there making his odyssey at the same time as Odysseus. What if they had crossed paths?

Good final point there, it did seem interesting to imagine that they were both adrift in the same seas in close to the same time period.

I'll probably find something fun to say about this chapter at a later time, but having read ahead in the book, I'm excited by the fact that it is AFTER Book 3 when the Aeneid comes alive for me, and escapes from being derivative. I certainly liked the episode with Achaemenides, but in Book 3 I still felt hung up on the fact that so far the Aeneid is Homer revisited.

More killing sons in front of their fathers...

But Orestes burned with love for his stolen bride,
spurred by the Furies for his crimes, he seized
Pyrrhus, quite off guard, and butchered him at his father’s altar.

This seems to be some sort of justice perhaps? It was Pyrrhus that killed Polites son in front of his father Priam.

There seems to be much of this going on.

I am reading the Fagles translation and am having trouble with line 397 from book 3 where Andromache asks Aeneas about his son Ascanius.

Your son, whom in the old days at Troy…
does he still love his mother lost and one?

One what? One mother? Is she asking if Aeneas has remarried thus providing Ascanius with another mother?

David wrote: "I am reading the Fagles translation and am having trouble with line 397 from book 3 where Andromache asks Aeneas about his son Ascanius.

Your son, whom in the old days at Troy…
does he still love his mother lost and one?..."

I'm almost sure that is a misprint. I think it has to be "does he still love his mother lost and gone?"

Here is the Latin, which I'm posting only because there is an interesting note on these lines at the Perseus site:

Quid puer Ascanius? superatne et vescitur aura,
quem tibi iam Troia—
Ecqua tamen puero est amissae cura parentis? (3.339-341)

Hopefully Max will answer our questions about the Latin, because my Latin is really crummy. But the note is interesting:

[340] A solitary instance in Virg. of a hemistich where the sense is incomplete. The copyists of the inferior MSS. have attempted to supply the deficiency in different ways—“peperit fumante Creusa” “obsessa est enixa Creusa,” “natum fumante reliqui.” Later critics, as Heyne Gossrau, and Ladewing, have fancied that the passage has been interpolated. Wagn. and Forb. complain that, as the text stands, Andromache makes no mention of Creusa, whom she could not know to be lost, and accordingly adopt, as does Ribbeck, ‘quae’ for ‘quem’ from the ‘Menagianus alter,’ separating ‘et vescitur aura’ from ‘superatne.’ (Ribbeck cites Med. for ‘quae:’ but a friend who consulted the MS. for me assures me that it distinctly reads ‘quem.’) They account for ‘amissae’ v. 341 by supposing that Aeneas gives some sign which shows that his wife is no more— an expedient which would scarcely be natural in an ancient drama, but is ridiculous in an epic. (Ribbeck supposes a lacuna.) The words of the next line clearly show that Andromache—how, we know not, but may imagine for ourselves— was aware of Creusa's fate. They are not such as would occur to her on the moment of hearing a piece of news like this: they are precisely what might be spoken under other circumstances by a mother possessed with the image of her own lost boy, and wondering whether the separation had really entailed a breach in their love of each other. On the whole, there seems no good reason to doubt that we have the passage as Virg. left it. If we cannot complete the hemistich satisfactorily, we may console ourselves with thinking that be could not either.

Thomas wrote: "I'm almost sure that is a misprint. I think it has to be "does he still love his mother lost and gone?"

GONE! That has to be it, Thomas. That makes so much more sense than "one" or "won".

Now the note you have supplied contains a claim that I question. Why would Andromache not know Creusa to be lost? I find it quite reasonable that the royal dead would have been accounted for before the Greeks left with those still alive as their slaves. There should have been plenty of time for funerary rites.

Book Three ends with a remarkable ellipsis. After detailing all of the Trojan's ordeals, from fleeing the sack of Troy to their arrival in Libya, Aeneas casually mentions that his father somehow died, in a land which he elects to tell us nothing about. Apparently no one in his audience (e.g. Dido) particularly objects to his skipping over the climax of his story. We can only assume that Virgil is saving this story for a later telling, though it's hardly clear why Aeneas would fall silent on such a point.

Zadignose wrote: " it did seem interesting to imagine that they were both adrift in the same seas in close to the same time ..."

It crossed my mind that perhaps it was the curse of Aeneis and his people that impelled the suitors to court Penelope so aggresively, so unhonorably, bringing, in the end, much sorrow to Ithaca.

Fitzgerald III: 366-68:

"...past the rocks of Ithaca,
Laertes realm, we ran, and cursed that island
Nurse of cruel Ulysses."

At 4, more killing sons in front of their sons....

There seems to be much of this going on."

There does. I don't know what to make of it, but it seems significant to me...
Back in Book 1 (Fagles I: 112+):

Aeneis:

"Three, four times blest, my comrades
Lucky to die beneath the soaring walls of Troy--
before their parents' eyes!.

Fitzgerald III:463+

"...What of your child, Ascanius?
Alive still, nourished by the world's air?
Even at Troy, one thought...

But does the boy
Remember her, the mother who was lost?"

David wrote: "Now the note you have supplied contains a claim that I question. Why would Andromache not know Creusa to be lost? I find it quite reasonable that the royal dead would have been accounted for before the Greeks left with those still alive as their slaves. There should have been plenty of time for funerary rites."

It isn't real clear, but I think their argument would be that Andromache is shocked to see Aeneas alive. So sure is she that he is dead that she thinks he might be a ghost. She then asks if Ascanius still lives as well. But she doesn't ask this of Creusa -- she already knows she is dead. How? If Aeneas is alive, wouldn't it be natural that his wife would be as well? When Aeneas returns in search of Creusa he sees long lines of women and children held prisoner by Greeks, and he takes many of the refugees with him in his ships. Even if Creusa didn't escape with Aeneas, wouldn't it make more sense for Andromache to assume she is among the prisoners rather than dead? Or at least show her uncertainty by asking?

It's not an airtight argument, but it's the sort of thing that Virgil would have normally explained. The fact that he doesn't is unusual. It is also known that he wasn't finished with the Aeneid when he died, so perhaps he intended to go back and polish this up for clarity.

Thinking about the differences between Aeneas' experience and Odysseus', I notice that at almost every turn Aeneas is guided by an omen or prophecy.

Their first stop is at Aeneadae (or what would become the city by that name) in Thrace, where the voice of Polydorus comes to him from a copse of dogwood. Aeneas tells the story of Polydorus (which is also told in Euripides' play Hecuba). He advises Aeneas to leave that unholy "land of crime." (3.79)

Next is the sacred island of Delos, where Apollo speaks from the ground. As is typical of the oracle, his prophecy is enigmatic -- Aeneas is told to "return to the land of your ancestors." (3.126) Anchises misinterprets this to mean the island of Crete.

When they arrive in Crete they find drought and pestilence. They are about to go back to Delos for further instructions when the household gods channel Apollo's clarification -- Crete is not their ancient home. They must find Hesperia, now called Italy. (3.220)

And so they set off once again, next encountering Harpies, and another prophecy from the Harpy Caeleno. She repeats the prophecy of Apollo but adds that before they found their city in Italy they will "be compelled to gnaw as food your very tables." (3.335)

Then finally the longest and most detailed prophecy comes from Helenus in Buthrotum. Helenus directs them to yet another oracle, the Sybil of Cumae, but they are blown off course by Juno before that can happen.

Everywhere they go there are prophecies and oracles, signs and portents. This seems to be a distinguishing feature that really makes the journey distinct from the one Odysseus makes. It is interesting though that the death of Anchises is not foretold. Perhaps this is a sort of kindness.

Thomas wrote: "...It is interesting though that the death of Anchises is not foretold."

In fact, it is neither foretold nor told. But yeah, you're right, there are oracles, signs, prophesies, and direct instructions received on all sides, at many phases throughout the journey. It makes me wonder just how many prophesies are needed more than "you will be successful, so go!" Yet, along the way, details related to tragic deaths and crises are still withheld, and somehow uncertainty remains.

Patrice wrote: "Do you think the difference might be because Odysseus knew where he was going? He was lost and trying to find his way home, where he belonged. He wasn't homeless, he just had to find his way home..."

think that might be the reason.

It also seems to me that Aeneis didn't have any foreknowledge of his father's death or Creusa's death given to him because it wasn't important. Sure, it was important to the humans; but the deaths of Anchises and Creusa might not have factored into Fate. Maybe there are only certain pivotal points in time that are actually Fated---such as Aeneis founding Rome. And the details along the way don't matter as long as that final Fate is achieved. Since the gods themselves don't control Fate--(not even Zeus could change the Fate of his son Sarpedon---at least not with impunity----not without terrible consequences)---maybe the gods don't see, can't foretell, the details that don't affect the final Fate. It's as though they know then ending: The North will win the Civil War. But they don't know the details of the deaths and heartbreak required to get to that point. And maybe it doesn't matter to them. Only the end game is important.

Adelle wrote: "And maybe it doesn't matter to them. Only the end game is important...."

Or, at least, that is how Virgil (Homer? man?) is able to portray the gods and Fate with words?

Lily, yes. Virgil, Homer...we...don't have the powers of gods....but we're going to use our words to try to make sense of this world.

OR...maybe the gods DO know...but they don't reveal those fated deaths because it would discourage the humans if they knew about them. Look how Aeneis searched and searched for Creusa...even though he had been told his fate or his duty was to flee Troy and found a new city. Would Aeneis have put into port in Drepanum if he knew that his father would die there? Wouldn't he try to avoid his father meeting his fate if he knew about it beforehand?

EDIT ADDED: like in Book I. Aenied had 20 ships. He brought 7 in with him safely. Then Venus, disguised as mortal girl, tells him, look there are 12 birds....all safe...your men are safe. 12 +7 = 19. So Venus knew that one ship didn't make it safely. But she didn't tell Aeneis that. Yes...Aeneis already knew, because he had pretty much seen that ship go down....but after Venus's words he's not quite so depressed...he can maybe hope that everything is going to be ok.

OR, the gods knew but didn't want Aeneis to know.

Fitzgerald III: 514+

Fitzgerald says " the priest"...i think the priest is Hlenus:

" A few things, out of many, shall I tell you,
So you may cross the welcoming seas
More safely, to find harbor in Ausonia;
Other details (? Like the death of Anchises?) of time to come the Parcae
Keep from Helens, and Saturn's daughter,
Juno, will not allow him speech of these."

So??? Juno doesn't want Aenis to know some things. Why?

Adelle wrote: "OR, the gods knew but didn't want Aeneis to know.

Fitzgerald III: 514+

Fitzgerald says " the priest"...i think the priest is Hlenus:

" A few things, out of many, shall I tell you,
So you may ..."

It's cryptic, but yes, Helenus does tell Anchises that he is destined for a "farther country." What this means isn't clear until Anchises dies, but in retrospect it seems pretty clear. Here is Mandelbaum's translation:

With deep respect Apollo's spokesman greets him:
'Anchises, honored as high mate of Venus,
Anchises, whom the gods care for, twice saved
from Troy in ruins: now Ausonia
is yours, bear down upon it with your sails.
And yet you must bypass the coast you see;
Apollo has disclosed a farther country...'

Over on the Background thread, propaganda was mentioned. That's what I thought about when I started Book 3:

Fitz III: 1-3:

"Now our high masters had seen fit to visit
Upon the Asian power of Priam's house
Unmerited ruin..."

And I jot down, "Is it?" IS it unmerited? I mean, Paris did run off with Menelaus's wife. Isn't this Virgil making the Roman ancestors look good?

Gold. Does Virgil represent gold as purely mercenary? Does the desire for gold get in the way of proper respect for the gods?

1) Virgil writes (thru Aeneis) that Achilles sold Hector's body for gold.

2) Dido founded Carthage, not through prowess, but through purchess, using her gold. And we know that in the end, Carthage is not the noble city that Rome is. Says Virgil.

3) Fitz III: 70:

"...This man, this Polydorus,
Ill-starred Priam had sent some years before
In secret, with great weight of gold.....

..... To what extremes
Will younot drive the hearts of men, accurst
Hunger for gold!"

Fate/Chance/Individual Action

So here's where I'm at. I'm thinking that Virgil has all three going on. I'm seeing the winds as Fate. Man has no control over the winds. But man CAN have some degree of influence... The winds (fate) might be blowing west...but man doesn't necessarily have to let the wind blow him helpless onto the rough shores. There does seem to be an aspect of man trying to insert his own power over the winds/over fate.

Fitzgerald:

"To hoist sail.....to the winds of destiny" (III:13)

"Court the favor of the winds.....and lay our course" (III: 159)

"Over the whitecapped waves
We fled while wind AND pilot called our course"(III" 363).

"at sea again, as the wind takes you...
Steer for the coast" (III: 553).

"with oars and wind" (III" 749).

"We hoisted sail...to a fair wind" (III: 902).

A particularly revealing line at 840:

"We prayed to the gods,
Drew lots ..." ...and then took action on their own: "with a pointed beam bored his great eye"

They covered all the bases: they prayed, they drew lots (chance), they took their own action..... Whose to say which contributed most to their success?

Wind might also be a symbol of furor. A natural force to be overcome. Aeneas must overcome his furor when his passion is to fight to the last for Troy -- he must calm the seas within to save his family and follow his destiny. Juno stirs the winds to blow Aeneas off course, and he must overcome this as well. I wouldn't equate wind strictly with fate, but it does seem to be an instrument of fate, as everything is.

Unless Virgil and the Romans of his day took a radically different approach to fate from the earlier classical writers, they would have believed in fate as absolute. If there is any such thing as free will (and there might not be), then it is just an element of fate which leads to the same inevitable conclusion.

This might pose some challenges to certain philosophers, but if we flash forward several hundred years, Boetheus attempts a rationalization of fate with free will that seemed to work for him. Just think of the future as you think of the past. Yesterday, my buddy Jim, a.k.a. Jimmius, swore at a passing magistrate, and the magistrate had him crucified as punishment. Now, I may believe in free will, I may believe that Jim could have refrained from swearing if he chose, and the magistrate had the option of forgiving him. Yet, the facts remain that Jim did swear, and the magistrate did condemn him.

To Boethius, the future was the same, except that we have no knowledge of the events to come. Being a Christian, he believed that the one omniscient God did have knowledge of all, that he existed outside of time and was not limited by it, and that he was not the cause of the actions we freely take, any more than I am the cause of Jim's crucifixion merely because I know about it.

Virgil didn't spell out such a philosophy of fate, as far as I know, but from what I've seen of the classics, when something was fated, it happened, and if people became aware of fate beforehand they were helpless to interfere with it, though they may well have been compelled to actively participate in bringing it about.

Tomorrow I shall think long rambling thoughts about Fate. But today I was thinking about the scene set near the city inland from Port Chaonia. I’m thinking about the city that Helenus now rules.

No spoiler; but long. (view spoiler)[

First, I had thought, how odd, how very, very odd, that Pyrrhus would bequeath his city to one of his slaves! I could almost understand Pyrrhus turning Andromache over to Helenus after Pyrrhus was tired of her…perhaps he had some fondness for her…or perhaps some admiration…I really could conceive of him having some reason for it; but why would Pyrrhus make Helenus ruler of the city?

(Fitz III: 396):

“And here
An unbelievable story reached our ears:
That Helenus, the son of Priam, now
Ruled over cities of the Greeks, as heir
To Pyrruhs’ wife and power”

Second, I remembered that someone here (Z, I think) that he felt The Aeneid to be derivative. Guess this stayed with me. `I’ve come round to thinking that Virgil meant for us to see this scene with something of the same feeling. That Virgil wrote this scene so that we could see what was remaining of Trojan royalty—Helenus, son of Priam; Andromache, widowed wife of Hector. And when we see how they are living, we realize that Aeneis is the superior man, and therefore Rome is being founded on the better bloodline.

Helenus and Andromache were forcefully taken from Troy as slaves.
Aeneis left Troy of his own volition (advised by the gods) as a free man.

The descendents of Helenus and Andromache will be the descendents .of slaves.
The descendents of Aeneis will be the descendents of a goddess and a free man.

Helenus seems to have become a priest, an interpreter of the gods.
Aeneis took the household gods with him---he took their formsbut they don’t define him…. he doesn’t seem to have brought a priest. The gods don’t speak through him. The gods told him to leave Troy…but they don’t seem to have given him any advice since then. (Encouragement from his mother, yes, but no advice.) Aeneis and his men make proper sacrifices – but it seems the have to figure everything out for themselves. Brave, bold, capable of independent thought are the founders of Rome.




Aeneis is going to found a new city bright with the promise of strength and a future of peace.

Helenus, Andromache, and their people have chosen to live in a small-scale, derivative Troy…a constant reminder of their own diminished past. Troy symbolizes years and years of fighting for a lie (the Trojans did know that Helen was in. effect stolen----even if she had come willingly, she was stolen)---and there is no future for Troy, peaceful or otherwise…Helenus and his people are looking backwards; Aeneis and his people are looking forward.

(Fitz:

“Andromache, in a grove outside the cty
Beside a brook, thin replica of Simois” (III: 407-08).

She views Troy and everything related to it as dead--- She can’t even believe that Aeneis is alive when she sees him:

“Your face,
Can it be real! And you real, messenger,
Coming before me?.....Where is my Hector?”

And she calls him a messenger. Not a man who can make his own decisions….she thinks he’s dead…a shade of a man….she’s little more than a shade herself…alive…but living in and for the past. She wishes she were dead: “Happiest of all was Priam’s daughter”/dead. Great nations cannot be built by such. Aeneis will found a great nation.

Helenus, again, is shown to be a lesser man than Aeneis. Aeneis is going to found his own city. Helenus rule was given to him when his master died---and even then, Helenus rule was diminished---he didn’t even get the whole---“Part of the kingdom passed to Helenus” (Fitz. III: 456”). “Passed.” How passive.

And Helenus can only look back! He renames everything with Trojan names:
,
“He called the plains Chaonian, the realm
Itself Chaonia—from the Trojan Chaon—
And built a Pergamum, a citadel,
Called Ilium’s, on this ridge.”

Helenus takes Aeneis on a walk through the city:

“Walking along with him
I saw before me Troy in minature.
a slender copy of our massive tower,
A dry [!!] brooklet [ a brooklet would be a diminished brook] named Xanthus…and I pressed
My body against a Scaean Gate [with all it’s sorrowful associations]".

Helenus has taken a new land and forced it into the forms he knows – on a small scale.
Aeneis had taken the forms he knows (the forms of his household gods) and freed them from the constrictions of one family’s home….he carries the forms with him….but he himself has to figure out what they are wanting him to do…where they want him to go…he has to make his own decisions as best as he can.

Andromache spends her days making “offerings and libation to the dust” and dreaming of Hector.
Helenus, now forgotten, lives his life in replica of a city he can’t forget.
Aeneis lives his life--- so that he is never forgotten…his life is lived through a constantly expanding geographical area…on his way to foundin.g a NEW city…which will last forever…”no limits.”

I thought this was an excellent move on Virgil's part. Usually the royalty are the superior people. Might the Romans not bemoan that fact that they weren’t descended from the royalty of Troy? Virgil shows them that by the end of the Trojan War the Trojan royalty were diminished people….Rome’s founder, Aeneis, son of a goddess, WAS the superior man!

(hide spoiler)].

Thomas wrote: "It is interesting that Aeneas is out there making his odyssey at the same time as Odysseus. What if they had crossed paths? "

I had the same thought; there they both are wandering around. I expect that Greek captains had a certain set of accepted routes, so that rather than just wandering anywhere over the Mediterranean, they would have generally stuck to established safe routes, which might have increased the chances of their running into each other, particularly since Aeneas sailed right by Ithaca.

I remember in Moby Dick the mention that New Bedford whaling ships often ran into each other, even though they were sailing the vast main oceans and not just an inland sea. So it certainly could have happened!

Although I have rudimentary knowledge of the Eastern Mediterranean, I got very confused about where Aeneas was going. I found this map to be very interesting:
http://www.complit.illinois.edu/CWL24...
It helped me follow the path of Aeneas's wandering (I love maps and mapping.)

I found it interesting that both Odysseus and Aeneas started out heading North to the coast of Thracia. One wonders who. This seems very out of the way for both of them. Is it just because Virgil wants to emphasize the parallels to the Odyssey that he has Aeneas start the same way, and head right by Ithaca on his travels? (Not to mention having Aeneas go by the island of the Cyclops and even pick up Achaemendies.)

I do wonder how much of these travels of Aeneas were already cast in legend and how many of the details Virgil made up for his own purposes.

Thomas wrote: "It isn't real clear, but I think their argument would be that Andromache is shocked to see Aeneas alive. So sure is she that he is dead that she thinks he might be a ghost. She then asks if Ascanius still lives as well. But she doesn't ask this of Creusa -- she already knows she is dead. How?"

I had assumed that, since Creusa died while the Greeks were still sacking the city, they mighthave brought the bodies out, particularly those whose clothing or ornaments would suggest them to be of the upper class, to give them proper burial. It seems that the Greek leaders were trying to calm things down after the victory, and they might have wanted to propitiate the gods by properly treating the bodies of the dead, maybe particularly of the women. (To make up perhaps for how Achilles treated Hector?)

If so, it might well have been that Andromache saw Creusa's body, but not seeing either of the others just assumed that they, too, had died.

Just speculation, of course.

Zadignose wrote: "Book Three ends with a remarkable ellipsis. After detailing all of the Trojan's ordeals, from fleeing the sack of Troy to their arrival in Libya, Aeneas casually mentions that his father somehow di..."

I, too, was struck by how that was just slipped in with no comment. Given that several people have commented, I think accurately, on how in the Aeneid we get much more intimate information about Aeneas's thinking and feeling than we do in Homer, I found it surprising that we just got a few lines about "best of fathers" and "grief to me." Nothing more than that.

But one thing did confuse me about that. From the Fitzgerald translation, right at that point, we get
"Here was my final sorrow, here the goal
of all my seafaring."

The death of his father was the goal of all his seafaring? Huh? What does that mean?

Day-Lewis has it:
"This was the last agony, the turning-point of my long course."

Makes a bit more sense, that this was a turning point, but then all we get is
"From there Providence took me and drove me to your coasts."

Does he mean that he basically gave up after his father died and just let things go as they would with no intentionality any longer? If so, I guess that might make some sense with what happens next. But still, it confuses me.

Patrice wrote: "Do you think the difference might be because Odysseus knew where he was going? He was lost and trying to find his way home, where he belonged. He wasn't homeless, he just had to find his way home.

Aeneas doesn't even know where he's going or where home is."

But Aeneas does know that he's supposed to go back to where the Trojans originated, though he gets it wrong at first, and then to Italy, though it doesn't seem clear to him exactly where.

But he gets direction from the gods throughout, whereas Odysseus is largely on his own as he wanders, at least until the last few weeks of his journey.

Everyman wrote: "But one thing did confuse me about that. From the Fitzgerald translation, right at that point, we get
"Here was my final sorrow, here the goal
of all my seafaring."

The death of his father was the goal of all his seafaring? Huh? What does that mean?
"

The Latin word translated as "goal" or "turning point" is meta which comes from the cones used to mark a turning point in a race.

Lewis and Short cites this exact passage and provides the following: "an end, period, extremity, boundary, limit: “longarum haec meta viarum,” Verg. A. 3, 714"

It sounds like "goal" is a misleading translation. I think Aeneas is just saying it was the last in a long chain of disappointments that occurred before they were blown off course and landed in Carthage.

Interesting reflections on Helenus and his derivative Troy, vs. Aeneas and his mission, Adelle.

Meanwhile:

Thomas wrote: "The Latin word translated as "goal" or "turning point" is meta which comes from the cones used to mark a turning point in a race."

This relates to a later event in the book, which is not a major plot point, but I'll hide it as a spoiler nonetheless.

(view spoiler)[This is a nice detail to know, as later in the book they stage a boat race around just such a marker, in the very same land where Aeneas's father died. (hide spoiler)]

Zadignose wrote: "Interesting reflections on Helenus and his derivative Troy, vs. Aeneas and his mission, Adelle..."

Thank you. I just came to me that that might well have been what Virgil was implying. I thought it so clever of him. Sigh. I re-read that post last night, and that last paragraph read as though I were patting myself on the back. My intention had been to praise Virgil. I have clarified that line.

Zadignose wrote: "This relates to a later event in the book, which is not a major plot point, but I'll hide it as a spoiler nonetheless.."

Nice connection. I hadn't thought about it, but I think you're right.

Patrice wrote: "...I've always thought of the winds as fickle and leaving us at their mercy. You know whichever way the winds blow, it's still an expression we use to describe our helplessness"

It occurs to me that one could extend the metaphor of the winds... If we want to or choose to or simply "do" believe in Fate...

Then we "could" think of the winds not as "fickle" but as "not yet understood by mankind" ... And we don't want to put further thought into the matter.

Like, today, a meteoralogist (sp?) wouldn't think the winds were fickle. She would know that the winds blew as they did for sound scientic reasons. Maybe meteorolgists can't yet fully predict the wind speed, the direction, etc....but they do a pretty good job...I've seen them make pre-hurricane predictions...Even before there is any sign on the shoreline that a hurricane is coming, meterologists can predict-- with some certainty--when the hurricane will hit, what direction it's coming from, how fast the winds will probably be. They provide fairly solid information. And if they're wrong....people don't hold it too much against them. It's not an exact science.

In a similar way, Aeneis, Anchises, etc., would give serious consideration to what their seers and prophets (like our meterologists) predict. They figure that there must be a way to know what's coming....and the seers have that job....and if the seers and prophets don't get it right, well, Anchises knows that reading futures (you know, like predicting the weather) isn't an exact science.

I realized, rereading Book 3, that it's really a record of Aeneas's attempts to found a new city. He tries several times, but keeps getting foiled one way or another. It's a bit surprising that he doesn't just give up and say this wasn't meant to be. But he keeps on trying!

Everyman wrote: "I realized, rereading Book 3, that it's really a record of Aeneas's attempts to found a new city. He tries several times, but keeps getting foiled one way or another. It's a bit surprising .....But he keeps on trying!"

He does, doesn't he? Perhaps perseverance is considered a Roman virtue or a laudable Roman characteristic.

Thomas wrote: "Wind might also be a symbol of furor. A natural force to be overcome. Aeneas must overcome his furor when his passion is to fight to the last for Troy -- he must calm the seas within to save his family and follow his destiny. Juno stirs the winds to blow Aeneas off course, and he must overcome this as well. I wouldn't equate wind strictly with fate, but it does seem to be an instrument of fate, as everything is.

."

You wrote "Aenaes must overcome his furor...he must calm the seas within...and follow his destiny..."

I like that. I knew it reminded me of something...ut it took awhile to figure out what.

! It put me in mind of that quote (I googled to find the name: Heraclitus.):

"A man's character is his destiny."

Through strength of character, by the self-discipline Aenaes exhibits in calming his inner furor, in keeping focused on his goal...instead of yielding to emotional impulses...Aenaes manages to achieve his [possible] destiny.

{I don't believe that that destiny was "set." My take is that the personal effort on the part of Aenaes was required to get there. Just as to reach port, the winds must be harnassed.

If the winds are blowing westard, then you are going to be going westward. But to achieve the goal...to reach port instead of being smash on the rocks, you must make the effort to harnass the winds....a man must do his part too.

I think The Aeneid supports this position. But the lines I would use to show support are in Book 4.}

Patrice wrote: "I agree and the the back story, that had to be in everyone's mind, was Mark Antony losing his mind, his purpose, his self discipline."

Great point. I had forgotten about that. But, yes, how un-Roman of him to dally for his own personal pleasure...and then to become so degraded as to align himself against Rome(at least that would be how Augustus would tell the story, maybe).

Adelle wrote: "Perhaps perseverance is considered a Roman virtue or a laudable Roman characteristic. "

The perseverance part would seem to fit well within Stoic Philosophy. However, founding a city seems a bit ambitious.

At 33; At 36 Everyman wrote: "Day-Lewis has it:
"This was the last agony, the turning-point of my long course."

....And Thomas wrote of "turning-point"

I just browsed an introduction by Steele Commager. He was writing about Book 1... but it makes sense in regards to the death of Anchises, I think:


"The closing picture of the Book [1] shows us Aeneas in a characteristic posture, bearing his father, the weight of the past, upon his back, and leading his son, the hope of Rome's future by the hand."

Maybe the death of Aeneas's father brings a final realization that the Troy Aeneas knew is gone forever... Aeneas hadn't wanted to leave Troy without his wife --- she died in Troy. Aeneas wasn't going to leave Troy without his father. Now his father is dead.

Maybe it's a turning point for Aeneas because it's really been brought home to him ... that with his home destroyed and the family that he had had dead... he can now only look forward.

Maybe the meaning is that since his son will live beyond him, since Troy is gone and Creusa is gone and now his father is gone, he has reached his final sorrow. (he thinks)

And in a way he has reached his goal...in that his focus now is on the future.

Zadignose wrote: "I'm excited by the fact that it is AFTER Book 3 when the Aeneid comes alive for me, and escapes from being derivative. I certainly liked the episode with Achaemenides, but in Book 3 I still felt hung up on the fact that so far the Aeneid is Homer revisited."

Glad to read this; I have only finished Book 3 and can't say I am as gripped by this as I was by the Odyssey. There have been some individually great scenes and passages, but I get a slightly stale feeling about the poem so far. It seems a bit studied. But onward I will go.

Everyman wrote: "I realized, rereading Book 3, that it's really a record of Aeneas's attempts to found a new city. He tries several times, but keeps getting foiled one way or another. It's a bit surprising that he keeps on trying..."

But he kinda has to keep on trying, don't you think? I mean, Aeneas didn't stay behind and do the manly, noble act of defending Troy to the death. And Troy's an honor society. What Aeneas did went against all the values of Troy...EXCEPT for the "fact" that the gods themselves had told him to flee Troy... and then eventually told him to found to New Troy... and eventually they told him where. Doesn't it seem that in order for Aeneas to justify his actions--his fleeing Troy--to himself and to his followers---in order for his life to have a heroic meaning rather than to think of himself and be thought of by others a coward...Aeneas MUST found that city that the gods wanted. He can't just settle anywhere...or so it seems to me...until the gods assure him that he's finally found the right place.

That's kind of why I thought Aeneas might not have had much to say about the death of his father. Maybe deep inside Aeneas wondered whether or not his father was proud of him...since Aeneas had not died the heroic death beneath the walls of Troy.

Maybe Aeneas didn't say much about his father's death because he maybe didn't think his father was proud of him. ? His father hadn't initially wanted to leave Troy, remember. And actually, the group didn't decide to leave until Anchises made the decision and gave the ok. And when, in Book 3 (view spoiler)[ Aeneas was crying out, "Whom should we follow?" it was his father received the sign and told the group which way to go: "Lay our course for Cnossus country" (Fitz 3: 140/159). And it was his father who later called on the gods "Gods, avert disaster of that kind!" (Fitz 3" 355). Later still, when leaving the Troy of Helenus and Andromache it was "Anchises [who] ordered sails unhoused to catch a favorable wind" (Fitz 3: 627). (hide spoiler)]

Maybe Aeneas didn't say much because he suspected that he wasn't the man that his father might have wished for him to be....he wasn't yet a decision maker.

BTW, did you happen to read the notes at the end of the book? I had assumed that Aeneas carried his father because his father was old and couldn't walk due to old age or old battle wound. But from the notes:

Anchises: "father of Aeneas by Venus; crippled by a flash of lightning by Jupiter because he boasted of Venus' love."

Hence that reference which I had missed in an earlier book about Anchises having been touched by fire.

I totally agree with you that Aeneas is meant to be a different kind of hero. He represents, I think, the kind of men that Vergil thinks Rome needs, the kind of men who obey and do their duty.

But Aeneas had been raised and had lived with the values of Troy: individual glory; defend Troy to the death. I just believe that even thouh the gods had told Aeneas to leave (OR, Aeneas ... due to the intense inner turmoil he was suffering ... imagined that the gods had told him to leave...which helps explain why the gods didn't tell him everything straight from the start...Aeneas had to keep getting messages from them as he needed more information)

...even though the gods had told him to leave...his leaving Troy went against everything that he had believed in for his entire life. So even though he knew that the gods had directed him, and he's moving forward on that basis........?


Mmm. But there was a book that wrote of how Vergil had studied Epicurius. And Vergil supposedly wrote The Aeneid greatly influenced by some guy named Luretius having read Luretius' poem De Rerum Natura. Many of Vergil's lines reflecting lines from De Rerum Natura. It IS there in the dedication: "Aeternum ditis da diva leporem. De Rerum Natura" Anyone know what that means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum...

"Luretius teaches that we human beings are accidental, mortal, and alone without gods."

I accented those two words because The Aenead does so often describe or suggest Aeneas as "alone": "A man apart" (Fitz 1: 16); "It came to this as I stood there alone"(Fitz 2: 742); "I turned back alone" (Fitz 2: 975); "Aeneas' single voice recalled the fates decreed by heaven" (Fitz 3: 951).

And often when the gods are mentioned, they are mentioned in a manner open to interpretation, open to doubt as to whether or not the gods exist: the household gods Aeneas carries with him are described as "beaten" (Fitz 1: 96) How can gods, if all powerful, be beaten?'

"Ah, sir, I beg you by the gods above, the powers in whom truth lives" [???and if truth does NOT live...and this is the story of lying Sinon, then might Vergil not be suggesting that there are no gods???) (Fitz 2: 192);

And the Sinon scene continues: "Eternal fires of heaven...Powers inviolable, I swear by thee," ..... And Sinon is not swearing falsely, is not bringing a curse upon himself, IF there are no gods.

"And keep faith, Troy, as you are kept from harm
IF what I say proves true, IF what I give
Is great and valuable." (Fitz 2: 221).

But what he says proves NOT true, and what he gave was NOT great and valuable, therefore it may mean that there is no reason for Troy to keep faith...Troy is NOT being kept from harm...because there are no gods.

some other scene written along the lines, "IF the gods are watching then such and such"...and such and such doesn't happen. Therefore??? No gods?

Anyway, the author (Eve Adler) makes the case that Vergil, like Lucretius before him, didn't believe in the gods. But that Vergil thought that it was better for society when the regular people believed in gods. Adler argues that Vergil wrote the Aenead in a way in which those who could handle the truth without harm could see that there were no gods; and the more regular people who would be harmed if they didn't believe in the gods, those people would see the gods as existing.

Anyway...it lent an interesting perspetive to my reading. 'Til late. Will re-read this in the morning.

Patrice wrote: That scene where Hector leaves his son and his wife to go fight...I didn't get the feeling he was looking for glory. If I remember correctly he was torn and running from the horror that he knew he would see when his wife and child were attacked. He was defending the home front, not seeking adventure or honor. After all, Troy was where he lived. The Greeks were pirates and adventurers but wasn't Troy an agricultural civilization? He was forced to fight, he didn't seek it. And when Aeneas first feels he should fight to the death, he is directed towards his family and told to protect them first. that is his first duty.
."

Ah, but I think Hector WAS fighting for honor. He knew by then Troy was lost, knew what would happen to his wife and child, knew that he could have taken them and fled...but he thought of the women with their trailing gowns...they (society) expect him to stay and fight...there is no honor if he doesn't.

And then, too, remember...yes, he was fighting to defend Troy...but everyone knew that Troy was in the wrong...Hector more than anyone, I think, knew that Paris was in the wrong to take another man's wife. But Hector is going to back his own. Therefore...he fights...therefore...he puts his wife and child at risk...defending the honor/the statis of Paris was more important than keeping his family safe. That's the way it was.

Even in this book, The Aeneid, there is reference to "the oath-breaking Trojans." Anyway, that's my take.

Patrice also wrote: The thing that doesn't make sense to me is how people can be "bettered" by worshipping these gods. They can become fatalistic and passive, they can realize that they are helpless, but is that better? Unless...Augustus wants a passive and obedient citizen. Yes, then passivity is "better".


My thinking is that a belief in gods would make for a "better"/a more civilized/a more law-abiding...and therefore a "better" society.

Rome, I know is famous for laws. But how well-established at this point would the legal system have been. And remember, there have been decades of wars...wars in which rules for good behavior have been ignored...it's war! So large numbers of people would have built habits of survival... Without a large body of men to enforce the laws...how can one make the people follow the laws...follow "good behavior"??? UNLESS the people feared the wrath of the gods. If the people believed in the gods, and feared just punishment for the gods if they violated the important laws and mores, then society would be ... smoother... a "better" society. I would think the issue wasn't whether or not the people themselves as individuals would be "better," but that the people, fearing the gods, would live such lives as would allow others to live in peace too.

Patrice wrote: "Wait a minute...the people had to "fear just punishment"? Where is there justice? I think that's the point that I'm stuck on. Where are the "important laws and mores"? If they are there I misse..."

One thing I don't see in the Aeneid, so far, is a sense of justice. Fate takes the place of justice, in the sense that actions aren't justified by a code of honor or a set of laws. Aeneas is "pious," not just.

Perhaps it's a point on which Roman culture in general is weak, at least by comparison with the Greeks, but there seems to be very little questioning of what is right. Aeneas does what he is told, as a good soldier should. In that sense he is the opposite of Achilles.

Patrice wrote: "Wait a minute...the people had to "fear just punishment"? Where is there justice? I think that's the point that I'm stuck on. Where are the "important laws and mores"? If they are there I misse..."

Well, My line of thinking is that if the gods hold that there is importance to hospitality, and you fear the gods will punish you if you break the "laws" of hospitality, then that would make for a "better"/smoother/more civilized society.

And it the gods hold that it is deeply wrong to break your oath, and you believe in the gods and that the gods WILL punish you if you break your oath, then that fear would make for a "better"/ smoother/ more civilized society where people might be able to believe one another more than they otherwise might. Don't we still make people take an oath when they are going to testify? And the belief on the god might have had some effect. There was some sanctity to one's word. One I had done taxes one year, i was pretty sure that some people who casually signed that their returns were true and factual....knew that their returns were not true and factual.

If the taxpayer believed that the gods would punish him for swearing falsely, he would be more likely to not "stretch the truth" on a tax return is swearing is true.

The belief in the god wouldn't necessArily make "better" people---but it would serve to make people behave in a way that would be "better"/more orderly/smoother for society as a whole.

Patrice wrote: "Yes, I think Fate takes the place of justice. Fate is the exact opposite of justice. That's the problem. If you are Fated to be born a king, that means it is just that you have absolute power over everyone. If you are Fated to be born a slave, it is just for you to be used and abused. If Agamemnon takes your prize, it was meant to be.."

i view it a little differently. Throughout The Iliad, I saw Fate as what had to happen to bring about "justice"--just punishment as seen for those times. Agamemnon was perhaps "fated" to take briesis in order that Achilles might become so angered as to withdraw from the fighting in order that the Greeks would need him more and more andmore desparately in order that Axhilles could attheend garner the glory that was promised him---and as the son of a goddess, in that culture, that would have carried weigjht. Agamemnon was fated to be killed by his wife...but it his fate as punishment.

Agamemnon may have been fated to have been born a king precisely so that he would be there at Troy to offend Achilles, thus bringing about fate/"early Greek justice" for many and so that it would be where he needed to be so that Clytemnestra would kill him when he was fated to die/"justice" for something he or his ancestors had done.

I don't see Fate taking the place of justice, but instead I see Fate using people as instruments to impose "justice" on those who have gone against the gods. I see it as some hugely complicated web...that even those being used by Fate..."deserve" what happens to them...due to something they did in the past or something their ancestors may have done. That seemed to be an ac eptable concept back then.

Even in The Aeneid, someone, Aeneas, I think, says that he hopes that the bad fate/the punishment due to Troy ("oath-breaking Troy"---that archer shot that arrow even though Troy had sworn not to...the Trojans all knew that Trojans would be punished) may perhaps at last have been paid, he hopes that the curse on Troy and on the Trojans for that act may finally have been paid. Maybe the Trojans at that point are still still paying for the wrong of PRis, too. And, of course, now the Trojans and their descendents will have several centuries of the curse of Dido. Some of the gods must have seen her as having been seriously wronged by Aeneis---and indeed the Trojans on the ship leaving the harbor knew that too"filled with foreboding---since some of the gods granted at least part of her curse.

Patrice wrote: "As always, a great thought provoking argument. Have to think about it now!"

I was thinking...that we still have a similar concept today. There are times when something negative happens to a person and others equate what happened to that person as "just" --- although there was no jury that made that judgement. People say all the time, "He got what he deserved." Maybe John jilted a girlfriend. Later, when something negative happened to John, people might say, "He got what he deserved." Or Larry was acquitted of murder...on a technicality...say pretty much everyone believed him to be quilty...and later Larry is killed in a terrible car crash...and there are those who might say, "He got what he deserved."

As though even today on some level many people believe or feel that there is some "force" in the universe that does punish those who would otherwise escape punishment. And, if the culture's concept of retribution extended not only to the directly guilty person, but also to that person's children and THEIR children, then it might be easy to see how whatever happens...must be the providence of the gods...perhaps the gods are punishing the 3rd or 4th generation...so even if the person punished looks guiltless, well, the ancestors must have done something and therefore the punishment is "just."

Remember Agamemnon's family was cursed for generations due that gruesome eat-your-own-child(Pelops) that Tantalus (sp?)had served.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelops

Patrice wrote: "But I still don't understand how you can be pious to "the gods" when there are so many of them. Juno wants Aeneas to do something different than the other gods. How can he be pious to her without being impious to the others?"

Great question, and I don't have an answer. It's hard for those of us who have grown up in monotheism to think like polytheists about the gods. On the other hand, it's interesting that Aeneas continues to pray and make sacrifices to Juno, even though he knows that she is working against him. This might be because the seers and prophets have instructed him to do so, rather than because of his personal devotion, but he does it anyway.

Latinists say that pietas is untranslatable, but sometimes it seems to me to be the same kind of faith that Job has in God. One of the prophets or seers tells Aeneas that with continued prayer he may be able to change Juno's mind. Like Job, he must keep the faith regardless. And like Job, the question of theodicy is never completely resolved.

Thomas wrote: " On the other hand, it's interesting that Aeneas continues to pray and make sacrifices to Juno, even though he knows that she is working against him."

You may be right, I may have missed it, but I have been looking for confirmation that Aeneas knows that Juno is working against him. WE know. And I remember that Aeneas was told to make a sacrifice to Juno. But does the Aeneid show us that Aeneas knew?

Venus pulled back the clouds and let him see Neptune and Juno and the Father himself tearing down Troy. But I haven't found anywhere else where it seems that Aeneas knows that Juno is trying to stop him from getting to Italy.