What do you think?
Rate this book
Dryden's Aeneid: The English Virgil
8vo. Original silver gilt lettered black cloth (VG), lacks dustwrapper. Pp. 151 (ex academic library with usual stamps and markings).
- GenresClassics
151 pages, Hardcover
First published April 30, 1991
4 people are currently reading
14 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
January 15, 2026
It may seem strange that I not only have read but re-read (after many years—the date and place I first inscribed on the flyleaf bringing many memories) this lengthy work in heroic couplets. Well, I enjoyed it: first for Virgil (the stories, the narrative drive, the complex twists of competing wills and desires), and then for Dryden's poetic skill. Three hundred and fifty pages (in my edition) of iambic pentameters in rhyming couplets might seem a rigid and repetitive form, but I enjoyed the hypnotic rhythm that this creates (like minimalist music), combined with the jolt of variation.
Dryden's short phrases can sum up a meaning perfectly. I liked 'pleasing flame' (in 'But will you fight against a pleasing flame?'—the reply of Dido's sister when asked by Dido what she should do about her 'secret fire' for Aeneas); and 'insolent delight' (Priam confronting the killer of his son 'Who takes in wrong an insolent delight').
I liked the way the rising sun 'added colours to the world revealed'; and the way, for the boys displaying their horsemanship, 'hopes and fears alternate intheir face'.
I liked the rhythmic variation of 'left foot' in 'He said, and trampled down, with all the force / Of his left foot, and spurned the wretched corpse', and the pauses at a comma of ' For Circe long had loved the youth on vain, / Till love, refused, converted to disdain'.
Dryden's short phrases can sum up a meaning perfectly. I liked 'pleasing flame' (in 'But will you fight against a pleasing flame?'—the reply of Dido's sister when asked by Dido what she should do about her 'secret fire' for Aeneas); and 'insolent delight' (Priam confronting the killer of his son 'Who takes in wrong an insolent delight').
I liked the way the rising sun 'added colours to the world revealed'; and the way, for the boys displaying their horsemanship, 'hopes and fears alternate intheir face'.
I liked the rhythmic variation of 'left foot' in 'He said, and trampled down, with all the force / Of his left foot, and spurned the wretched corpse', and the pauses at a comma of ' For Circe long had loved the youth on vain, / Till love, refused, converted to disdain'.
July 14, 2014
I read my first review of this poem and thought it sounded a bit pedantic. So I offer here a more candid reflection for my own entertainment as well as that of the reader. Enjoy.
I picked up this book and decided to read it because it was part of a set of Harvard Classics inherited from my father. It also sounds impressive to say, "Yes. Yes, I have read Virgil." Let's face it: the vast majority of us are not well-read, so when someone bandies about the name Virgil or Aeneid we nod our heads knowingly while resting in a slightly uncomfortable fog of ignorance and envy. (We may also be suspicious that the person talking is equally ignorant but brave enough to wax eloquent based on the ten-page excerpt they read as an undergrad.)
I want to be truly well-read. So I actually did read the whole epic poem. It did not disappoint! The first big surprise for me was the context: it takes place following the fall of Troy and explains the fate of those few Trojans lucky enough to escape the wrath of the Greeks. Surprise number two: Virgil was a Roman commissioned by Caesar Augustus to offer a mythical history of the rise of Rome to counter the great epic poems of Homer...which leads to the only disappointment: I have not read Homer's Iliad which documents the fall of Troy from the Greek perspective, and have only read selections of the Odyssey as an undergrad. It's somewhat akin to watching Return of the Jedi when you have not seen A New Hope and have only seen the Battle of Hoth from The Empire Strikes Back. Nevertheless, it was not enough to diminish the satisfaction that comes with reading a great tale!
Surprise number three: Virgil's treatment of heroics, battle, and adventure differ in surprising was from our contemporary depictions. In contemporary stories (like those depicted in the movies) we usually get some sort of epilogue or a hint of one. A calm, so to speak, after the storm. Not so here. The foe is defeated - end of story. At first I found the ending to feel almost truncated. Over time I have come to understand this ending to be for the best. Imagine for a minute having an epilogue: "Aeneas went on to found a settlement in the land of the Latins. He married and had six more children, one of whom was a major disappointment, another who was illegitimate. None of them was exceptional. He also spent his time trying to build a system of governance that was mediocre at best, but the vast majority of his time was spent settling land disputes and drinking heavily until he died of liver complications. His last words were, 'Dido, oh Dido, be not angry with me when we meet on the other side of the River!'" No, this just would not do. Roman history is the only suitable epilogue for this great tale.
It now remains that I read the great works of Homer. I have seen reviews of Virgil's work that place it below that of Homer's in terms of greatness. I think such a view is unwarranted and ignores the context behind the writing of the Aeneid. Nevertheless, I cannot say until I have read the works myself. I hope I find them to be great, but I confess, I don't want them to be greater than Virgil. I guess I have a thing for underdogs.
I picked up this book and decided to read it because it was part of a set of Harvard Classics inherited from my father. It also sounds impressive to say, "Yes. Yes, I have read Virgil." Let's face it: the vast majority of us are not well-read, so when someone bandies about the name Virgil or Aeneid we nod our heads knowingly while resting in a slightly uncomfortable fog of ignorance and envy. (We may also be suspicious that the person talking is equally ignorant but brave enough to wax eloquent based on the ten-page excerpt they read as an undergrad.)
I want to be truly well-read. So I actually did read the whole epic poem. It did not disappoint! The first big surprise for me was the context: it takes place following the fall of Troy and explains the fate of those few Trojans lucky enough to escape the wrath of the Greeks. Surprise number two: Virgil was a Roman commissioned by Caesar Augustus to offer a mythical history of the rise of Rome to counter the great epic poems of Homer...which leads to the only disappointment: I have not read Homer's Iliad which documents the fall of Troy from the Greek perspective, and have only read selections of the Odyssey as an undergrad. It's somewhat akin to watching Return of the Jedi when you have not seen A New Hope and have only seen the Battle of Hoth from The Empire Strikes Back. Nevertheless, it was not enough to diminish the satisfaction that comes with reading a great tale!
Surprise number three: Virgil's treatment of heroics, battle, and adventure differ in surprising was from our contemporary depictions. In contemporary stories (like those depicted in the movies) we usually get some sort of epilogue or a hint of one. A calm, so to speak, after the storm. Not so here. The foe is defeated - end of story. At first I found the ending to feel almost truncated. Over time I have come to understand this ending to be for the best. Imagine for a minute having an epilogue: "Aeneas went on to found a settlement in the land of the Latins. He married and had six more children, one of whom was a major disappointment, another who was illegitimate. None of them was exceptional. He also spent his time trying to build a system of governance that was mediocre at best, but the vast majority of his time was spent settling land disputes and drinking heavily until he died of liver complications. His last words were, 'Dido, oh Dido, be not angry with me when we meet on the other side of the River!'" No, this just would not do. Roman history is the only suitable epilogue for this great tale.
It now remains that I read the great works of Homer. I have seen reviews of Virgil's work that place it below that of Homer's in terms of greatness. I think such a view is unwarranted and ignores the context behind the writing of the Aeneid. Nevertheless, I cannot say until I have read the works myself. I hope I find them to be great, but I confess, I don't want them to be greater than Virgil. I guess I have a thing for underdogs.
June 16, 2014
Virgil’s Aeneid viewed cynically is propaganda. He was legitimizing the government of Caesar Augustus, following the defeat of Marc Antony at Actium.
Virgil appeals to the gods whenever Aeneas or his men do something questionable, like kill a man on his homeland over an animal hunt, or attack and take over land that isn't theirs. Oh, the gods helped them? Then it must be okay. The irony is, this is a counterfeit of the time when this happened legitimately, when God gave Israel the promised land. I wonder where they got that idea from?
The big idea is also a counterfeit of the Gospel story - the founding of Rome after the fall of Troy is a death and resurrection story. The glory of Troy is reborn in Aeneas, the founding father of Rome, like the west is reborn in Pilgrims and founding fathers like George Washington, founding fathers of America; or like Israel is reborn in Jesus Christ as the Church.
Even with all the gory battle depicted, the Aeneid also presents too rosy a view of humanity. Aeneas and the Latins would have made peace, but the gods’ capricious infighting spoiled it.
Still, Virgil writes glorious literature. I recommend especially the Dryden translation (versified and rhymed throughout!).
At the end Aeneas is angry, just like Achilles was angry in the Iliad. We can assess this two different ways. Perhaps there has been no progress from Homer to Virgil. Both were angered by deaths or insults on the battlefield, and Rome has learned nothing from history. Or perhaps Aeneas’ rage is more judicial, paying back death to Turnus for his unnecessary killing of others. Do we see here the beginning of a better society of Roman justice and law, or the continuation of barbarism dressed up with piety, death-or-glory charges, and suffering founders?
Most interesting to me is the way God writes Aeneas into the Bible.
“And there he found a certain man named Aeneas, which had kept his bed eight years, and was sick of the palsy. And Peter said unto him, Aeneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise, and make thy bed. And he arose immediately” (Acts 9:33–34).
I don’t think this could be a coincidence. The Aeneid was published 30-50 years before this incident with Peter. Glorious Rome was now “sick of the palsy,” paralyzed and desperately in need of a Savior. Even heroes, founding fathers, and great empires need the King of kings.
Virgil appeals to the gods whenever Aeneas or his men do something questionable, like kill a man on his homeland over an animal hunt, or attack and take over land that isn't theirs. Oh, the gods helped them? Then it must be okay. The irony is, this is a counterfeit of the time when this happened legitimately, when God gave Israel the promised land. I wonder where they got that idea from?
The big idea is also a counterfeit of the Gospel story - the founding of Rome after the fall of Troy is a death and resurrection story. The glory of Troy is reborn in Aeneas, the founding father of Rome, like the west is reborn in Pilgrims and founding fathers like George Washington, founding fathers of America; or like Israel is reborn in Jesus Christ as the Church.
Even with all the gory battle depicted, the Aeneid also presents too rosy a view of humanity. Aeneas and the Latins would have made peace, but the gods’ capricious infighting spoiled it.
Still, Virgil writes glorious literature. I recommend especially the Dryden translation (versified and rhymed throughout!).
At the end Aeneas is angry, just like Achilles was angry in the Iliad. We can assess this two different ways. Perhaps there has been no progress from Homer to Virgil. Both were angered by deaths or insults on the battlefield, and Rome has learned nothing from history. Or perhaps Aeneas’ rage is more judicial, paying back death to Turnus for his unnecessary killing of others. Do we see here the beginning of a better society of Roman justice and law, or the continuation of barbarism dressed up with piety, death-or-glory charges, and suffering founders?
Most interesting to me is the way God writes Aeneas into the Bible.
“And there he found a certain man named Aeneas, which had kept his bed eight years, and was sick of the palsy. And Peter said unto him, Aeneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise, and make thy bed. And he arose immediately” (Acts 9:33–34).
I don’t think this could be a coincidence. The Aeneid was published 30-50 years before this incident with Peter. Glorious Rome was now “sick of the palsy,” paralyzed and desperately in need of a Savior. Even heroes, founding fathers, and great empires need the King of kings.
Read
June 2, 2015The heroic couplets are beautiful in and of themselves, but there was a gap in my mind between their beauty and the comparative harshness of modern spoken English. Of course, this says nothing about the integrity (which is stunning) of Dryden's translation; all I mean to say is that even though this is a landmark English poem, it will take some work to get all the way through. I believe I started it in March of 2014 and finished around the turn of 2015, dropping in and out of it from time to time.
The heroic couplets can also curiously muddle the plot for modern readers, more or less depending on your past engagement with such works. With each successive couplet, one perceives Dryden's choice of wit and word, while one also attempts to perceive narrative structure and, as they arise, important plot points. It is entirely possible to do all three things, but poses more difficulty than the average read, perhaps even moreso than that other landmark English poem Paradise Lost, unrhymed as it was.
The heroic couplets can also curiously muddle the plot for modern readers, more or less depending on your past engagement with such works. With each successive couplet, one perceives Dryden's choice of wit and word, while one also attempts to perceive narrative structure and, as they arise, important plot points. It is entirely possible to do all three things, but poses more difficulty than the average read, perhaps even moreso than that other landmark English poem Paradise Lost, unrhymed as it was.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews