The Aeneid Discussion Group

[Virgil]

Virgil, forgive the delay in this posting; it resulted from something that always seemed missing in the English translation (Dryden, in this case). First let me say that when making our own translation of many key parts of this Latin epic, back in the day, we were so busy trying to get the parts translated correctly that the impetus of the work was almost considered peripherally. There are variations on the theme for each deity, a concept that seems illusive because of common and present religious assumptions that most readers bring to this experience. The oft mentioned gods such as "the tyrant Aeolus", god of the winds and "the haughty Juno", overloard deity, should not be percieved as just a god among many others, but rather consider them active forces of nature in Virgil's world and like natural forces were fickle, fair and unfair, conspiring against or assisting Aeneas, his warriors and his enemies. The reader encounters so many deities as to dismiss them as the ravings of a primative religion. It is helpfull to look for a mindset that includes these entities as real to Virgil as earth, air, fire and water.

Very good point Quasi. But it is interesting in the first book that while the winds destroys and sinks the ships Neptune (or was it Venus) reconstructs them and undos the damage, presumably bringing back to life drowned sailors. That's actually beyond just natural forces.

Since the Latin text is so compressed compared to modern translations, alot of what we would call spin or connotation comes across somewhat watered down. Here is a usefull comparison........................................ ............ ["Aeolus haec contra: "Tuus, O regina, quid optes explorare labor; mihi jussa capessere fas est. / Tu mihi quodcumque hoc regni, tu sceptra Jovemque/ concilias, tu das epulis accumbere divum/ nimborumque facis tempestatumque potentem." ] lines 76 to 80 inclusive.... And the English translation (Dryden) ["To this the god: "'T'is yours, O queen, to will / The work which duty binds me to fulfil. / These airy kingdoms, and this wide command, / Are all the presents of your bounteous hand: / Yours is my sov'reign's grace; and, as your guest, / I sit with gods at their celestial feast; / Raise tempests at your pleasure, or subdue; / Dispose of empire, which I hold from you."] Note the length of the English compared to Latin; it shows at least that some intensity is lost in translation.

Yes I see. I wish I could really read Latin. It's a shame we have to rely on translators so desperately. I don't have my editions handy (I'm at work right now) but I wonder how Fagles and Fitzgerald handle that section. I will check when I get home.

[quasimodo1]

http://www.unrv.com/culture/major-roman-god-list.php and this paragraph about Roman Religion circa 600BC, just about the time the Aeneid Epic was placed. "The gods of the Roman pantheon began taking on the forms known today during the dynasty of the Etruscan kings in the 6th century BC. These gods, Jupiter (Zeus), Juno (Hera), and Minerva (Athena), were worshiped at the grand temple on the Capitoline Hill. As Rome's power grew and expanded throughout the known world, the Roman Empire came into contact with the cultures and religious beliefs of many cultures. The Romans, happy to absorb and assimilate any culture they encountered thereby reaping the benefits of both its wealth and religious influence, were a mosaic of belief systems. Foreign gods and customs not only played major roles but were also given temples and priesthoods within Rome itself. The goddess Cybele, a Phoenician god was adopted during the Second Punic War to counteract any benefit that Hannibal may have gained. Even after his defeat, Cybele remained an integral part of the Roman system. Another very popular foreign god was the Persian god Mithra. Overwhelmingly supported in the Legions, this deity offered eternal salvation for the immortal soul and its popularity helped pave the way for the later Christian cult whose similarities made its adoption less difficult."

[Lioness_Heart]

What's a pictorial Aeneid?

Well, basically he'd just illustrate as we translated. And if we got stuck, we'd have a bit of a pictionary session to try to work it out. It was very fun, and meant that we all knew the story really well! Except he was the worst artist I've ever seen (Dido was basically a squiggle with a crown on top)

[Dori]

My English teacher just assigned 1984 by G. Orwell, so I will have to postpone The Aeneid until next week at least. I also started reading Those Who Love by Irving Stone which is 700+ pages long.

Everyone here sounds so darn intelligent though grrrr... by the time I actually get around to posting on litnet my brain has already been fried for the day!!!! But I shall pursue...

I don't think I could justifiably make this claim (of sounding intellegent, that is). This is largely a learning experience for me (I hope ).

stlukesguild I keep seeing the quotations in your signature and I keep wanting to say how much I love them!!!! Thank you for sharing them, they're great!

Seconded.

[Janine]

My English teacher just assigned 1984 by G. Orwell, so I will have to postpone The Aeneid until next week at least. I also started reading Those Who Love by Irving Stone which is 700+ pages long.

Wow, how school can interfer with such fun reads! I must also refrain because I decided I am loading myself up with too much again this month and I really do need a bit of a rest or to proceed with my own direct interests, at my own leisurely pace.

Dora, you will enjoy reading those books, most likely.
I want to check out more Irving Stone, eventually. Which ones did you particularly like? You said your mother owns a number of them. I only read "The Agony and the Ecstasy" years ago, when a friend gave me a copy. I loved it! Can you tell me - didn't Stone write a similar book on "Van Gogh"? However, I may be mixing up authors. I thought it was called "Lust for Life" but not at all sure - that just popped mysteriously into my feeble brain.

I don't think I could justifiably make this claim (of sounding intellegent, that is). This is largely a learning experience for me (I hope ).

Yeah, really, there are some on the forum that seem to think they are intelligent (not talking about anyone here so you can all be relieved), but their intelligence may be questionable. Anyway, we are all intelligent in our own way....
Grace, you are smarter than you give yourself credit for!

I like those signatures, too.

[bluevictim]

It might be fun/interesting/useful to discuss some of the legends that are mentioned in Book 1 which also occur in Homer. When I first read the Aeneid, I found myself often stopping and trying to remember the relevant passages in Homer, so maybe this will help if someone has the same tendency.

Lines 39-45, Ajax son of Oileus -- See Odyssey, Book 4, lines 499-511 for a description of how Ajax the lesser (not to be confused with Telamonian Ajax) died. Homer doesn't relate the reason behind Athena's anger. According to legend, Ajax tore Cassandra from Athena's temple (she had run to it for refuge) so forcefully that he broke the wooden image of Athena which she was clinging to; according to later legend, he raped Cassandra in front of Athena's image.

Lines 96-97, son of Tydeus (ie Diomedes) -- See Iliad Book 5, lines 297-351. Aeneas is referring to the episode where Aeneas fights Diomedes, and is overcome (Diomedes was on a streak at the time) but miraculously rescued in the nick of time by Aphrodite (Venus) and Apollo. This seems to be a common experience for Aeneas. Later (Iliad Book 20), Poseidon miraculously rescues him from Achilles in the nick of time. While Poseidon is debating whether or not he should save Aeneas from death, he prophecies that Aeneas will "escape" and that he and his sons will rule the Trojans. Poseidon's prophecy may be one of Virgil's reasons for choosing Aeneas to be his hero.

Line 99, son of Aeacus (ie Achilles) and Hector -- Hector's death at the hands of Achilles is described in Book 22 of the Iliad.

Line 100, Sarpedon -- Patroclus kills Sarpedon in Iliad Book 16, lines 419-507. In this account, there is a debate between Zeus (Jupiter) and Hera (Juno) that receives a lot of attention, about whether or not he should defy fate and save Sarpedon. One of the most famous passages in all of Homer is Sarpedon's speech in Book 12 of the Iliad (lines 310-328). In it he urges his fellows to fight because that (he asserts) is the obligation of kings to their subjects. He also uses the certainty of death as a reason to fight: since you can't escape your fate, you might as well go out and die gloriously.

Lines 469-473, Rhesus -- The story of Odysseus and Diomedes raiding the Thracian camp at night and killing Rhesus and stealing their horses is in Book 10 of the Iliad.

Lines 474-478, Troilus -- Homer only makes passing mention of Troilus. In Greek sources, he is a boy killed early in the war by Achilles either on Apollo's altar or in an ambush.

Lines 479-481, Trojan women -- This is described in Iliad Book 6, lines 286-311. The Greeks were getting the better of the Trojans so Helenos, a seer, addressed Aeneas and Hector, instructing Hector to go to the city, as Aeneas takes over the fighting, to instruct the women to make sacrifices at Athena's temple and lay robes on her idol's knees. This is the reason why Hector left the fighting to have his famous moment with his wife and son at the end of the book.

Line 482, the goddess just turned away and held her eyes fixed -- Maybe this detail was suggested by a remark by Homer (line 311, Book 6, Iliad): "but Pallas Athena turned her head up [in refusal]".

Lines 483-484, three times around the Trojan wall he had dragged Hector -- After Achilles kills Hector, he ties his body to his chariot by the ankles and drags his body behind it, but in modern editions of Homer, there is no mention of Achilles dragging Hector around Troy's walls three times. Homer does describe Achilles dragging Hector in front of Troy's walls (where he killed him) back to the Greek camp (Book 22), and around Patroclus' body three times in Book 23, and around Patroclus' tomb three times in Book 24 of the Iliad.

Line 484, sold the corpse for gold -- That is, Achilles allowed Priam to ransom Hector's body back (Iliad Book 24).

For many of the legends that do occur in Homer, Virgil's main source was probably Homer, but he also drew on a lot of traditional stories. Anyways, since probably no one found my hexameters very amusing, I thought I'd post something that might be a little more useful, especially to people who like Homer's epics.

[Dori]

Wow, how school can interfer with such fun reads! I must also refrain because I decided I am loading myself up with too much again this month and I really do need a bit of a rest or to proceed with my own direct interests, at my own leisurely pace.

Yeah, school does have a way of putting a knot in things... I have been looking forward to reading 1984, despite any comments I've picked up from this side (that is, those concerned with the "overratedness" of the book), so it is not hard to postpone any other reading.

Dora, you will enjoy reading those books, most likely.
I want to check out more Irving Stone, eventually. Which ones did you particularly like? You said your mother owns a number of them. I only read "The Agony and the Ecstasy" years ago, when a friend gave me a copy. I loved it! Can you tell me - didn't Stone write a similar book on "Van Gogh"? However, I may be mixing up authors. I thought it was called "Lust for Life" but not at all sure - that just popped mysteriously into my feeble brain.

It's Dori, not Dora.

My friend's mother owns a lot of them. I've only read The Agony and the Ecstasy, but after I finish Those Who Love, I will be moving onto The Origin, a book about the life of Charles Darwin. And yes, you are correct; Stone wrote a book about Van Gogh called Lust for Life. My friend's parents are the sort of people who have boxes upon boxes of books, and therefore if they own any of his other works, they are lost among them.

I enjoy our discussions, Janine, so perhaps we could continue via PM? I'm not one for getting too off-topic, although, as you've seen, it does seem to happen.

[Janine]

Yeah, school does have a way of putting a knot in things... I have been looking forward to reading 1984, despite any comments I've picked up from this side (that is, those concerned with the "overratedness" of the book), so it is not hard to postpone any other reading.



It's Dori, not Dora.

My friend's mother owns a lot of them. I've only read The Agony and the Ecstasy, but after I finish Those Who Love, I will be moving onto The Origin, a book about the life of Charles Darwin. And yes, you are correct; Stone wrote a book about Van Gogh called Lust for Life. My friend's parents are the sort of people who have boxes upon boxes of books, and therefore if they own any of his other works, they are lost among them.

I enjoy our discussions, Janine, so perhaps we could continue via PM? I'm not one for getting too off-topic, although, as you've seen, it does seem to happen.

Yeah, Dori - oh geez, sorry, now Dora definitely sounds like a girl, sorry, slipped when typing...
We will definitely communicate via PM (I will answer this one in there...I will write you first)...give me a evening to clear out my PM box; it is now 99% full...eek! They might ban me from emails; horrors!

[bluevictim]

I always have to fight my tendency to dismiss the Aeneid as merely derivative of Homer. One thing I enjoy in the Aeneid that is absent from Homer is the intimate connection with the present time (present, that is, with respect to 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. There is some minor aetiology in Homer, but the events in the Homeric epics have little connection with current events. In the Aeneid, on the other hand, the central focus of the narrative is on the events that established the current state of affairs. The Iliad was about how the wrath of Achilles nearly brought the Greeks to ruin and the Odyssey was about how Odysseus returned home and restored order, but the Aeneid is about how Rome was founded. I think this focus sets the Aeneid apart from the Homeric epics.

[Petrarch's Love]

Petrarch's Love... we could refer to THE Virgil by his full name, Publius Vergilius Maro... or Virgilius for short. Rather like your own dilemma in discussing Petrarch's Canzoniere. Luckily, we're not likely to be reading anything by St. Luke in the near future.

Hmm. maybe I'll try switching to Virgilius for the real Virgil. Would make it more abundantly clear. Maybe I'll also start up a thread on the Canzoniere simultaneous to our discussions here, just to drive everyone crazy.

Petrarch's Love... I guess that the link I see between the way in which the Greco-Roman gods play with the mere mortals and that of the Book of Job lies more within the behind the scenes frame story. Ever since reading Stephen Mitchell's marvelous introduction to his translation of Job, I have been unable to ignore the almost Kafkaesque absurdity and cruelty. God calls all his minions together then brags, "did you notice my servant, Job?" The tempter (or the Accuser) cannot help but fall for the bait... and for the sake of a bet, if you will, he's given permission to do as he will. After the death and destruction of almost all that Job cares for the Lord then states (in a manner almost nauseating) "See? He's holding on to his wholeness even after you made me torment him for no reason." which is followed by the calm cruelty of "All right. He's in your power; just don't kill him." When the Lord eventually does deign to answer Job's question, "Why", the answer is an almost visionary splendor conveying the impossibility of ever fathoming God's intentions... but then I find myself wondering... how far removed is this from Kafka's tales of the unknowable... mysterious ways of the powers that be? Can we really expect the Lord to come out and admit, "Well Job, you see... it all began with this little bet..."? But I digress... Virgil... Virgilius...Publius Vergilius Maro... that's our man.

Yes, of course you're right about the framing story. For some reason the speech from the whirl wind is always what really sticks in my mind from Job and I sort of forget about the opening, which probably just goes to show that God has a wicked PR man. So yes, of course both you and Virg. are right that God is on some level toying with Job. 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. Anyway, I’ll stop rambling so that we can go back to discussing the Aeneid.

he oft mentioned gods such as "the tyrant Aeolus", god of the winds and "the haughty Juno", overloard deity, should not be percieved as just a god among many others, but rather consider them active forces of nature in Virgil's world and like natural forces were fickle, fair and unfair, conspiring against or assisting Aeneas, his warriors and his enemies.

Yes, doubtless the gods of the Aeneid (and Homer, and other Greco-Roman epics) are often personified natural forces. I think what gives these stories their enduring power is that the gods are inspired by a combination of the powerful and unpredictable forces of nature and--as St. Luke's suggested earlier--of the powerful and unpredictable forces of human nature in the high and mighty.

Very good point Quasi. But it is interesting in the first book that while the winds destroys and sinks the ships Neptune (or was it Venus) reconstructs them and undos the damage, presumably bringing back to life drowned sailors. That's actually beyond just natural forces.

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.

It might be fun/interesting/useful to discuss some of the legends that are mentioned in Book 1 which also occur in Homer. When I first read the Aeneid, I found myself often stopping and trying to remember the relevant passages in Homer, so maybe this will help if someone has the same tendency.

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

Everyone here sounds so darn intelligent though grrrr... by the time I actually get around to posting on litnet my brain has already been fried for the day!!!! But I shall pursue...

Do hope you join in, Grace. You're just as intelligent as the rest of the bunch, it's just that some of us have a head start having read the Aeneid a few times already.

[bluevictim]

I don't really get the sense that Job is necessarily God's plaything, as much as a sense that we don't really know what God's motives are. He may just be playing about and testing Job, or there may be some really good reason for Job's suffering related to some highly complex universal plan. We just don't really know.

Oh but Job is a plaything of God and we the reader do know what His motives are. As St Luke's quotes subsequent to your post, God is in a way betting with Satan on Job's faith. The difference is that Job as a character doesn't know why God is afflicting him, as opposed to Aeneas who certainly knows of his duty to found Rome and I believe he understands that Juno is set against him.

It seems to me that it is more appropriate to describe Job as a "plaything" of the gods than Aeneas. In the case of Aeneas, the motivations of the gods are clear and human. Venus loves Aeneas because he is her son, so she makes efforts to help him. Juno hates Aeneas because he offended her, so she makes him suffer. In Job's case, on the other hand, God just kind of sits back and sees what will happen. When Job asks why he is being afflicted, God's response is, basically, "it's not for you to know" -- something a father would say to his young child or a general would say to a private.

[stlukesguild]

Petrarch's Love- Yes, of course you're right about the framing story. For some reason the speech from the whirl wind is always what really sticks in my mind from Job and I sort of forget about the opening, which probably just goes to show that God has a wicked PR man.

I agree. There is such a contrast between the almost "primitive" frame story and the brilliantly poetic and visionary rant of Job... and God's reply from the whirlwind, that Stephen Mitchell went so far as to suggest that the author was playing with the contrast intentionally... perhaps drawing upon an older existing narrative and presenting it in a one-dimensional manner... ala a puppet show or bit of German Expressionist theater... and then contrasting it so dramatically with the brilliant visionary poetry.

So yes, of course both you and Virg. are right that God is on some level toying with Job. 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.


Yes... I certainly see this. The God of Job is surely playing with Job... and yet far closer to him in the sense that he is his creator... and he basks in Job's loyalty... but this almost makes his cruelty more disturbing... unless we can fully accept the notion that God's ways are unfathomable... that he has the concerns of the entire universe... a universe almost completely unknown (unknowable) to man at hand... and as such how dare we question him? But then that frame story pops into my mind again... and I see God allowing for the destruction of this man who so loves and honors him... all for the sake of a bet... a very disturbing dichotomy.

The gods of the Aeneid on the other hand are indeed more "human" in their comings and goings... their favoritism... their seductions and love affairs... and yet... as you point out... mankind as a whole does indeed have less of a relationship with them... they are rather like pets... or a chess game... to be played with at will. Or left to their own devices when they become bored.

[grace86]

I accidentally lied Virg. the translation I read in my literature book was Robert Fitzgerald. That translation I noted in the margins loses a little bit of poetry in favor of more recent/understandable English.

Janine thanks for the compliment!

Petrarch I am definitely going to try and join in, it is an exciting read and I would love to read fully through it. My first day of class starts tomorrow and I think what I will have to do is figure out some time management ideas...because I must be some sort of sucker for pain. I took three courses last quarter and was so stressed out, this quarter I am taking five. Will I ever learn?

But I am going to see what I can get through tonight in terms of recreational reading. Looks like it will be a quiet night....hopefully I won't spend all of my time here on litnet!

[Quark]

I was stranded computer-less in San Deigo, and it looks like I missed the beginning of the discussion here. I'm glad Virgil got it started, though. The Aeneid is one of my favorites. I studied it for a while in college, and it is everything the eighteenth-century critics praised it for being. That is, the poem is a very compelling and well-designed epic. Yet, it's so much more than that. It's also incredibly imaginative. Everything in the story seems alive and is described with organic or personifying language. Unlike in the novels or poems we're used to, man, hero, and God make up three separate forms of characterization. Some of these more fantastic elements are lost in translations; but, even with the most sterilized versions of the story, the creativity of the poet comes through.

As for Book I, what most strikes me is how emotionally-driven it is. Compare the tearful opening of this book to the action of the Iliad or the Odyssey. Even though there is action in Book I, you really don't feel scared or thrilled by it the way you do in Homer's epic. No, what captivates interest is Aeneus' despondency, Juno's anger, or Venus' concern. It's odd that in an epic, Virgil seems more interested in playing on my sympathy than he does on forming a exciting story.

Before I go any farther, I think I'm going to read back over some of the other points people have made. I want to make sure I'm not repeating something or going off on too much of a tangent.

[Virgil]

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.

I always have to fight my tendency to dismiss the Aeneid as merely derivative of Homer.

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.