The Aeneid Discussion Group

[Virgil]

For example, I really enjoyed the prophecy by Jupiter in Book 1 recounting the sequence of events that will lead from Aeneas' son Iulus to Julius Caesar. Also, the interaction between the Trojans and Dido brings to mind the eventful history between Rome and Carthage.

Actually you read my mind. I wanted to focus in on this section. Let me put my typing skills to work and type out that section:

The Father of Men and Gods, smiling down on her [Venus]
with the glance that clears the sky and calms the tempest,
lightly kissing his daughter on the lips, replied:
"Relieve yourself of fear, my lady of Cythera,
the fate of your children stands unchanged, I swear.
You will see your promised city, see Lavininum's walls
and bear your great-hearted Aeneas up to the stars on high.
Nothing has changed my mind. No, your son, believe me--
since anguish is gnawing at you, I will tell you more,
unrolling the scroll of Fate
to reveal its darkest secrets. Aeneas will wage
a long, costly war in Italy, crush defiant tribes
and build high city walls for his people there
and found the rule of law. Only three summers
will see him govern Latium, three winters pass
in barracks after the Latins have been broken.

What I find interesting in that section is that Vrgil actually tells us the ending and projects into the future of Aeneas' after the epic, even though it's early in the first book. I don't recall Homer doing that in either epic, although I could be wrong. In effect Virgil has created a circle.

Let me continue that section. Jupiter is still speaking:

But his son Ascanius, now that he gains the name
of Iulus--Ilus he was, while Illium ruled on high--
will fill out with his own reign thirty soveriegn years,
a giant cycle of months revolving around and around,
transferring his rule from its old Lavinian home
to raise up Alba Longa's mighty ramparts.

I have always been confused with the name changes that Aeneas's son goes through. Why? I understand that Iulus becomes Julius, of the Julius Ceasar clan, but why doesn't he just start with that name and why is there the intermediate name of Ilus? Anyone understand that?

Jupiter continues:

There, in turn, for a full three hundred years
the dynasty of Hector will hold sway till Ilia,
a royal priestess great with the blood of Mars,
will bear the god twin sons. Then one, Romulus,
reveling in the tawny pelt of a wolf that nursed him,
will inheret the line and build the walls of Mars
and after his own name, call his people Romans.

What's interesting here as I think bluevictim said that Virgil links the Aeneid events with the legend and history of Rome. Interesting that Virgil refers the lineage as the dynasty of Hector. I had to look up that Aenaes's first wife Creusa, the mother of Iulus, is Hector's sister. But Virgil doesn't say the dynasty of Priam, their father and Troy's King, as I would have expected, but of Hector, the warrior.

Jupiter continues:

On them I set no limits, space or time:
I have granted them power, empire without end.
Even furious Juno, now plaguing the land and sea and sky
with terror: she will mend her ways and ways and hold dear with me
these Romans, lords of the earth, the race arrayed in togas.
This is my pleasure, my decree. Indeed, an age will come,
as the long years slip by, when Assaracus' royal house
will quell Achilles' homeland, brilliant Mycenae too,
and enslave their people, rule defeated Argus.
From that noble blood will arise a Trojan Caesar,
his empire bound by the ocean, his glory by the stars:
Julius, a name passed down from Iulus, his great forbear.
And you, in years to come, will welcome hm to the skies,
you rest assured--laden with plunder of the East,
and he with Aeneas will be invoked in prayer.

And Virgil brings it full into the present time and actually have the heirs of the Trojans revenge the fall of Troy by the Roman conquest of Greece. What is also interesting is that Aeneas and his son become gods in the heavens, as the emperors were to be, and as Augustus was considered a living god. We see here also the Roman devotion to their ancestors, the fore-fathers "invoked in prayer."

Jupiter concludes:

Then will the violent centuries, battles set aside,
grow gentle, kind. Vesta and silver-haired Good Faith
and Romulus flanked by brother Remus will make the laws.
The terrible Gates of War with their whicked iron bars
will stand bolted shut, and locked inside, the Frenzy
of civil strife will crouch down on his savage weapons,
hands pinioned behind his back with a hundred brazen shackles,
monstrously roaring out from his bloody jaws."

And so Virgil projects that all the wars and battles is a working toward a peaceful, lawful time. His day. It's a way to make sense of history and his own tumultuous times.

[stlukesguild]

I always bristle when I hear that the Aeneid is merely a derivative. First of all, Homer was also working in a tradition of epics and because the others have not survived we don't know what Homer picked up from other epics and how much he derived. Second, there may not be a single Homer. It may be a conglamoration of oral poets, each aiding in the creation of masterpieces. Virgil is writing alone, not one to smooth out or edit rough spots. Third, Virgil is consciously using Homer as an allusion to add and contrast his epic, so there are reasons for paralleling Homer. Fourth the epic was the novel genre of their time. Just like today, we have a novel form, and centuries from now people will look back and see how similar our novels are, but we here today find it undiscernable.

OK Virgil... I'll take your word for it. Just kidding. Seriously... I think that a large part of the problem with Virgil is that his book is often read quite soon after one has read Homer in most World Literature Surveys. I think that someone listening the Brahm's 1st Symphony immediately after Beethoven 9th Symphony might feel a similar sense of the work being "derivative". But then Brahm's 1st is a brilliant work of original music and not a poor man's Beethoven. The same holds true of Virgil. In all honesty, most art builds upon the examples of the artist's predecessors. In some cases these borrowings are obvious... in other instances they are far more oblique. Perhaps we might ask why Virgil would think to structure his masterwork so closely upon such a well-known and honored example. If Virgil is building upon Homer perhaps it may be of some worth to examine just why and where these borrowings take place (beside the obvious)... and where and why Virgil deviates from this model? Of course... as a painter... I might add that I don't know if I would be all that offended if someone started comparing my paintings to Rembrandt's

[grace86]

Goodness I am learning so much just by reading the posts, I haven't even begun to re-read it either!

[bluevictim]

By the way, I appreciated your hexameter. The muses of Lit. Net don't get invoked nearly enough.

Thanks! Now I'm eagerly waiting for an opportunity to start a thread with "Sing, siliconian Muses..."

I always bristle when I hear that the Aeneid is merely a derivative. First of all, Homer was also working in a tradition of epics and because the others have not survived we don't know what Homer picked up from other epics and how much he derived. Second, there may not be a single Homer. It may be a conglamoration of oral poets, each aiding in the creation of masterpieces. Virgil is writing alone, not one to smooth out or edit rough spots. Third, Virgil is consciously using Homer as an allusion to add and contrast his epic, so there are reasons for paralleling Homer. Fourth the epic was the novel genre of their time. Just like today, we have a novel form, and centuries from now people will look back and see how similar our novels are, but we here today find it undiscernable.

Thanks for your thoughts on this. Just to clarify a little, I agree that the derivative nature of Virgil doesn't mean that one should dismiss it (which is why I fight my tendency to dismiss it ). Also, by "Homer", I just mean the two epics, Iliad and Odyssey, whoever or whatever the composer or composers of those poems were. When I say I tend to dismiss the Aeneid as derivative, I'm not talking about Virgil the writer, but the Aeneid itself; it's a statement about my opinion of the poems themselves, not a judgment of the achievement of the poets.

In my opinion, Virgil's dependence on Homer goes deeper than just some parallels and allusions. Sometimes I even get the feeling that Virgil is trying to out-Homer Homer (but that's probably just me). I agree that it was deliberate, and that it doesn't mean that Virgil was not creative. It seems like parodying the Greeks just appealed to the taste of the Romans in general.

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
Could you give me some line citations for the passage you're thinking of, Virg.? I don't remember a point when Neptune miraculously reconstructs ships or brings people back to life. I thought he just calmed the seas and helped the remaining ships and survivors to shore. Maybe I'm forgetting though.

I couldn't find it by flipping through. I will have to re-read the book, which I had intended to do. So I'll get back to you on that.

Petrarch I was wrong. I misread. I had thought all the ships were destroyed in the storm and when I saw that seven ships still sailing I jumped to the conclusion that they had been reconstituted. But no. Actually 20 ships are making the voyage and seven survive the storm. So apparently 13 ships are destroyed. Sorry about that.

[Quark]

I think that a large part of the problem with Virgil is that his book is often read quite soon after one has read Homer in most World Literature Surveys. I think that someone listening the Brahm's 1st Symphony immediately after Beethoven 9th Symphony might feel a similar sense of the work being "derivative".

In my opinion, Virgil's dependence on Homer goes deeper than just some parallels and allusions. Sometimes I even get the feeling that Virgil is trying to out-Homer Homer (but that's probably just me). I agree that it was deliberate, and that it doesn't mean that Virgil was not creative. It seems like parodying the Greeks just appealed to the taste of the Romans in general.

Is the poem really that unoriginal? In what ways do you think it's a copy? Both The Aeneid and The Odyssey have a similar plot. In The Odyssey people are on their way home, and in the Aeneid people are going to their homeland. So, I guess both are seafaring adventures with similar goals. And, it's true that both stories exist in the same universe with gods and the fall of Troy. But, the cast of characters is almost entirely different. The plot is also different because they don't know where there home is. Every time they land we're not sure whether this is where they will stay or not. I already pointed out one style difference between the Aeneid and Odyssey: one is more suspenseful and the other is much more sympathetic. Beyond this, The Aeneid has themes which bind the separate books together--whereas Homer's stories are more episodic.

[Virgil]

Is the poem really that unoriginal? In what ways do you think it's a copy? Both The Aeneid and The Odyssey have a similar plot. In The Odyssey people are on their way home, and in the Aeneid people are going to their homeland. So, I guess both are seafaring adventures with similar goals. And, it's true that both stories exist in the same universe with gods and the fall of Troy. But, the cast of characters is almost entirely different. The plot is also different because they don't know where there home is. Every time they land we're not sure whether this is where they will stay or not. I already pointed out one style difference between the Aeneid and Odyssey: one is more suspenseful and the other is much more sympathetic. Beyond this, The Aeneid has themes which bind the separate books together--whereas Homer's stories are more episodic.

Great points Quark. Right on as far as The Aeneid. I agree with everything you say except for that very last statement: "whereas Homer's stories are more episodic." Yes, The Odyssey is very episodic, but The Illiad is not. The Illiad is as complex a plot as any modern novel. I don't believe we will get as complex a plot as the Illiad well into the 18th or 19th centuries. As a structure it is quite remarkable.

[quasimodo1]

At the end of Book One, the reader in my opinion gets the sense that all has happened as was intimated by the text, man's and god's comments. This Pygmalion effect (something that is discussed today for the purpose of motive and method in corporate management) is in plainer terms called "the self-fulfilling prophecy". In many ways, the Aeneid becomes the blueprint for future Roman accomplishments and events; it is in many ways an epic that seems to make of itself the self-fulfilling prophecy but in a monumental way. I think you get of sense of this from these passages...[English trans. by Dryden...."Who hate the tyrant, or who fear his hate.
They seize a fleet, which ready rigg'd they find;
Nor is Pygmalion's treasure left behind.
The vessels, heavy laden, put to sea
With prosp'rous winds; a woman leads the way.
I know not, if by stress of weather driv'n,
Or was their fatal course dispos'd by Heav'n;
At last they landed, where from far your eyes
May view the turrets of new Carthage rise;
There bought a space of ground, which (Byrsa call'd,
From the bull's hide) they first inclos'd, and wall'd.
But whence are you? what country claims your birth?
What seek you, strangers, on our Libyan earth?"
To whom, with sorrow streaming from his eyes,
And deeply sighing, thus her son replies:
"Could you with patience hear, or I relate,
O nymph, the tedious annals of our fate!
Thro' such a train of woes if I should run,
The day would sooner than the tale be done!
From ancient Troy, by force expell'd, we came-
If you by chance have heard the Trojan name.
On various seas by various tempests toss'd,
At length we landed on your Libyan coast.
The good Aeneas am I call'd- a name,
While Fortune favor'd, not unknown to fame." ]
[http://classics.mit.edu/Virgil/aeneid.1.i.html] And the first part of this in the Latin .......... Book One, lines 361 to 380 approx. ["........Conveniunt quibus aut odium crudele tyranni/ aut metus acer erat; navis, quae forte paralae, / corripiunt onerantque auro. Portantur avari/ PYGMALIONIS opes pelago; dux femina facti. /Devenere locos ubi nunc ingentia cernes/ moenia surgentemque novae Karthaginis arcem, / mercatique solum, facti de nomine Byrsam, / taurino quantum possent circumdare tergo. / Sed vos qui tandem? Quibus aut venistis ab oris? / Quove tenetis iter? / Quarenti talibus ille / suspirans imoque trahens a pectore vocem: ...."]
The questions at the end of this Latin segment give a sense of Virgil's style not evident in the English. quasimodo1

[quasimodo1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/ar...=1&oref=slogin

[Quark]

Alright, I'm starting to catch up with the discussion now.

All the same, I think there's a very different sense about the God in Job versus the gods of the Aeneid. Even if you're focusing on the undoubted senseless cruelty of God in Job, or have a bit of trouble swallowing His answer (which I'm sure nearly all readers do, at least from time to time) I still think there's more of a sense that God is acting in a somewhat enigmatic or, to phrase it another way, an irrational fashion. Perhaps the difference that I'm really dancing around here, though is the nature of the relationship between man and the almighty. The God of Job is a creator, and as such there's this move to hold himself lofty and apart and unknowable, but at the same time he's really closer, more invested in man because it is His creation. The whole story is about hammering out this relationship between Creator and Created, and even the bet--though it could be attributed to God's ego--is caught up in proving something about the nature of man, which I think in some perverse way says something about His level of investment in man.

The gods of the Aeneid, on the other hand, do not make as much of an attempt to be so aloof or mysterious in their actions. They come down to earth, mingle with men, and are sometimes even the fathers and mothers of men. At the same time, however, the Virgilian gods, though they appear closer, also seem less invested in mankind in the way that God in Job is. Yes, they have their favorite cities and their favorite heroes etc., but there's more a sense that they have a whole social thing of their own going on around Olympus and that they mess around with human affairs like a game of chess. It’s clearer to everyone involved I think, what kind of relationship the gods have to man. By this I don't mean to say that the gods aren’t unpredictable and flighty, or that Aeneas might not be just as frustrated as Job, but that it’s fairly open that the gods do have this unpredictable toying relationship with men, whereas in Job there’s a lot more questioning going on about what exactly the relationship is. I think that’s probably more along the lines of what I was thinking when I said that Job doesn’t strike me as much as a plaything.

Yeah, I agree that the Judeo-Christian God of the Job story is a little different from the Pantheon of Gods in The Aeneid. The God of the Bible tests his prophets and tries to gradually enlighten them, whereas the divine cast of The Aeneid is interested in man as a tool to play out their own rivalries with other Gods. Though, I don't know if that makes the monotheistic one more distant from man than the polytheistic group. It seems like it's quite the other way around. Estrangement, distance, and hope for togetherness are major themes in The Aeneid, and this is played out in the Romans relationship with their Gods. Book I explains Aeneus' own separation from his mother, and Book II describes Troy being abandoned by its Gods. Compared to this, Job's God is pretty hands-on. This is one of the differences between Virgil's epic and the Bible. The characters in The Aeneid actively pursue and hope for contact with their Gods--who are elusive--and the people of the Bible are constantly sinning and forsaking their God, and God has to come down every other day setting things straight.

Yes, The Odyssey is very episodic, but The Illiad is not. The Illiad is as complex a plot as any modern novel. I don't believe we will get as complex a plot as the Illiad well into the 18th or 19th centuries. As a structure it is quite remarkable.

The Iliad is certainly intricate, but I don't think it's particularly thematic. The interest of the story is more on plot, action, mythos, or whatever you want to call it. In the last forty years, there has been a lot of criticism trying to discover some consistent themes in The Iliad, but I don't know if any of them have really been successful. None of this is an attack on the Iliad or anything pejorative, because (between you and me and everyone on LitNet) The Iliad is a way cooler story.

At the end of Book One, the reader in my opinion gets the sense that all has happened as was intimated by the text, man's and god's comments. This Pygmalion effect (something that is discussed today for the purpose of motive and method in corporate management) is in plainer terms called "the self-fulfilling prophecy". In many ways, the Aeneid becomes the blueprint for future Roman accomplishments and events; it is in many ways an epic that seems to make of itself the self-fulfilling prophecy but in a monumental way.

Much of Zeus' prophecy is actually history to Virgil. This is after much of Rome's conquest and expansion--they're 3-0 vs. the Carthaginians and almost perfect in their conference. The real forward-looking part of Zeus' vision is the claim that peace will follow Rome's wars. This actually turns out not to be so prescient. So, I'm not sure really if we can say this is a self-fulfilling prophecy since we can't even say that it's a fulfilled prophecy.

[Virgil]

The Iliad is certainly intricate, but I don't think it's particularly thematic. The interest of the story is more on plot, action, mythos, or whatever you want to call it. In the last forty years, there has been a lot of criticism trying to discover some consistent themes in The Iliad, but I don't know if any of them have really been successful. None of this is an attack on the Iliad or anything pejorative, because (between you and me and everyone on LitNet) The Iliad is a way cooler story.

What? The themes of life and death and man's relationship to man and man;'s relationship to the gods is thematic throughout The Illiad. That commentary goes back centuries. And that's not even mentioning the themes of honor, leadership, and maturity. I don't know what commentary you're reading, but you might as well throw it out if it doesn't understand that. The Illiad is definitely thematic and consistant and a complete work of art. It is one of the greatest works of literary art ever composed.

[Quark]

What? The themes of life and death and man's relationship to man and man;'s relationship to the gods is thematic throughout The Illiad. That commentary goes back centuries. And that's not even mentioning the themes of honor, leadership, and maturity. I don't know what commentary you're reading, but you might as well throw it out if it doesn't understand that. The Illiad is definitely thematic and consistant and a complete work of art. It is one of the greatest works of literary art ever composed.

We're dangerously close to getting into one of those semantics arguments again. I don't mean to say that The Iliad is a poor work of art, or that it doesn't have themes at all. The Iliad is perhaps the best epic ever, and it does have some important themes. When Agamemnon and Achilles have their conflict in Book I, we obviously are dealing with themes like loyalty to a group and personal needs. It's definitely a theme; but, once the conflict between the two characters is done, the theme is abandoned. In The Iliad, you're right there are themes, but they come and go with the action. This isn't a weakness of Homer--it's just what he does. In The Aeneid, themes recur and the reader is brought back to them. That's why I say that The Aeneid is thematically more "consistent". The isolation of the wander vs. the togetherness of a community is a theme in The Aeneid which keeps being brought up. It's originally triggered by the fall of Troy and Aeneus' search for a new home, but we're reminded of in many other ways. Aeneus' relationship with his mother, the contrast with Carthage, the separation Aeneus feels when he's in the cloud Venus gives him each bring back the theme. It isn't tied to a single event, but made into a running theme. This doesn't make Virgil superior to Homer. No, it's just how Virgil happens to write.

[Virgil]

We're dangerously close to getting into one of those semantics arguments again. I don't mean to say that The Iliad is a poor work of art, or that it doesn't have themes at all. The Iliad is perhaps the best epic ever, and it does have some important themes. When Agamemnon and Achilles have their conflict in Book I, we obviously are dealing with themes like loyalty to a group and personal needs. It's definitely a theme; but, once the conflict between the two characters is done, the theme is abandoned. In The Iliad, you're right there are themes, but they come and go with the action. This isn't a weakness of Homer--it's just what he does. In The Aeneid, themes recur and the reader is brought back to them. That's why I say that The Aeneid is thematically more "consistent". The isolation of the wander vs. the togetherness of a community is a theme in The Aeneid which keeps being brought up. It's originally triggered by the fall of Troy and Aeneus' search for a new home, but we're reminded of in many other ways. Aeneus' relationship with his mother, the contrast with Carthage, the separation Aeneus feels when he's in the cloud Venus gives him each bring back the theme. It isn't tied to a single event, but made into a running theme. This doesn't make Virgil superior to Homer. No, it's just how Virgil happens to write.

Well, I disagree about your assessment of The Illiad. But let's put that aside for another day. This thread is about The Aeneid.

[Janine]

Well, I disagree about your assessment of The Illiad. But let's put that aside for another day. This thread is about The Aeneid.

Yeah, is there really any need to compare these two great works? I think you should all stick to the story at hand, as you said Virgil, the Aeneid.

[bluevictim]

Is the poem really that unoriginal? In what ways do you think it's a copy? Both The Aeneid and The Odyssey have a similar plot. In The Odyssey people are on their way home, and in the Aeneid people are going to their homeland. So, I guess both are seafaring adventures with similar goals. And, it's true that both stories exist in the same universe with gods and the fall of Troy. But, the cast of characters is almost entirely different. The plot is also different because they don't know where there home is. Every time they land we're not sure whether this is where they will stay or not. I already pointed out one style difference between the Aeneid and Odyssey: one is more suspenseful and the other is much more sympathetic. Beyond this, The Aeneid has themes which bind the separate books together--whereas Homer's stories are more episodic.

I agree that Virgil did not merely copy Homer, and thanks for pointing out some important differences between the Aeneid and the Odyssey. I know I've already said this, but since it seems I'm being taken the wrong way, let me emphasize again that I don't mean to accuse Virgil of being an unskilled copycat.

I do think that he used a lot of Homeric material; he took that material and transformed it to serve his own purposes, but it was Homeric material nonetheless. I don't think this is just an illusion of schoolboys reading the Aeneid for the first time after having just read Homer, and I don't think the dependence is merely due to being in the same genre (unless the genre being considered is precisely "works that are like Homer"), or to the typical interaction between works of art. Throughout the whole poem, Virgil begs the reader to compare the Aeneid with the Homeric epics.

To answer Quark's question, I'll start with some higher level examples. The Aeneid is organized in two parts. The first half (Books 1-6) relates the sea-faring journey of Aeneas and corresponds with the Odyssey. This is balanced by the second half (Books 7-12), whose main concern is fighting, corresponding to the Iliad. The plot incoporates many of the famous Homeric set pieces -- funeral games (Aen. 5 and Il. 23), a visit to Hades (Aen. 6 and Od. 11), an extensive list of combatants (Aen. 7 and Il. 2), an elaborate shield made by Vulcan for the hero (Aen. 8 and Il. 18), a night raid (Aen. 9 and Il. 10). Some examples of how the style is also often imitative of Homer are the long speeches, the use of epithets (like "faithful Orontes" in Book 1 line 113) and the occurrence throughout the poem of striking and elaborate similes (like Book 1 lines 430-436) after the pattern established by Homer.

Besides these more obvious examples, the Aeneid is full of plot parallels, verbal echoes (or direct quotes), and allusions to Homer (to the extent that finding these parallels is basically an industry in itself). I'll give some examples from Book 1 (since most people have probably read that far by now):

The reminiscence of the opening of the Odyssey in the opening lines of the Aeneid has already been pointed out earlier in this thread.

The poem begins in the middle of the action, as do both the Iliad and the Odyssey.

In lines 37-156, Juno gives an angry soliloquy and then causes a storm to wreak havoc on the Trojans. This makes Aeneas wish he had died in the Trojan war, calling those who did "three and four times blessed". Finally, Neptune calms the storm. In Book 5 of the Odyssey (lines 286-387), Poseidon gives an angry soliloquy and then causes a storm to rage against Odysseus. This causes Odysseus to wish he had died in the Trojan war, calling those who did "three and four times blessed". Eventually, Athena calms the storm.

Line 198 is a translation of line 208 of Book 12 of the Odyssey.

In lines 314-368, Aeneas meets the goddess Venus disguised as a huntress and Venus tells him the story of the people of the land he is in. In Book 7 of the Odyssey, Odysseus meets the goddess Athena disguised as a girl carrying a pitcher and she tells him the story of the people of the land (lines 18-77).

In lines 411-508, Aeneas walks through Carthage enveloped in a mist, amazed at the sights. In lines 81-141 of Book 7 of the Odyssey, Odysseus walks through Phaeacia enveloped in a mist, amazed at the sights.

At the end of Book 1, Dido asks Aeneas to tell the story of his wanderings, which he does as she listens, just as King Alcinous asks Odysseus to tell the story of his wanderings at the end of Book 8 of the Odyssey, which Odysseus does as King Alcinous listens.