Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
The Aeneid
Virgil, Aeneid - Revisited
>
Book Two
date
newest »
newest »
It's funny how the Trojan Horse is not even mentioned in the Iliad and yet it became the most recognizable element of the Trojan War. This shows how influential Aeneid is...
I love the way book 2 begins.Fitzgerald's translation (lines 1-2):
"The room fell silent, and all eyes were on him,
As Father Aeneas from his high couch began:
A wonderfully succinct and dramatic way to transition into the story of Troy's fall!
I've only read the first third of book 2 tonight because I had a lot of terms to look up. In the Fitzgerald translation, the Greeks are referred to by a dizzying array of terms (Pelasgians, Danaans, Argives, Achaens). Most of these I knew, but Pelasgians was new to me. Many other terms were new to me as well as were several references to heroes and places.
I found the story of Sinon fascinating!
I am not certain what the message would have been for his contemporary Romans, but I imagine after a whole series of wars between the Greeks and Romans, his contemporaries wouldn't have minded the unflattering depictions of the Greeks as dishorable? In this depiction, Virgil implies the Greeks could never have won the battle of Troy by war; so they had to resort to trickery.
Oddly though, I wonder if the message taken away by some of his readers might have been something similar to The Prince, that treachery and underhandedness are quite effective tools of politics and war? Certainly, there was quite a lot of both treachery and underhandedness in Roman politics, though I have no idea of the time frame of various historical happenings in relation to the timeframe of the writing of The Aeneid.
Depending on when it was written in relation to contemporaneous events, I suppose it could have been a sly, indirect criticism of contemporareous treacheries as well.
Thomas wrote: "But a portent appears in the guise of a flame that lights upon little Iulus' head, followed by a sign from Jupiter that Anchises heeds. I find the flame curious... what exactly does that mean?..."I think the flame halo is symbolizing a crown. Jove is trying to tell Anchises that they have to save themselves because his grandson is destined to be a great king, a founder of the Roman race, ancestor of the Julia gens.
Thomas wrote: "Finally, Aeneas returns to his family. His father, Anchises, wishes to fall with the city. Aeneas objects and wants to return to the fight. But a portent appears in the guise of a flame that lights upon little Iulus' head, followed by a sign from Jupiter that Anchises heeds. I find the flame curious... what exactly does that mean? "The first thing that came to my mind was the Day of Pentecost which is described in the New Testament. After the Jesus death his followers felt desperate and didn't know what to do next. Then the Holy Spirit descended on them and tongues of flames appeared above their heads.
It seems that in old times flame of fire appearing above someone's head meant the presence of God (or Gods) and that God has some special plan with that person.
I just finished the second third of book 2, and it is gorgeously written (and gorgeously translated by Fitzgerald). I was so moved by it, by the horror and the enormity of what was happening. But even in the midst of the seething horror, Virgil manages such tight control of the plotting. It's gripping, this moment by moment account of what Aeneas encounters in the final hours of Troy. And then the ending itself, the cruel irony:(lines 722-723, 725-729)
"That was the end
Of Priam's age . . .
. . . he that in other days
Had ruled in pride so many lands and peoples,
The power of Asia.
On the distant shore
The vast trunk headless lies without a name."
It reminds me a little of Shelley's "Ozymadius," with the utter futility of human pride in the end.
This portion of book 2 was probably my favorite passage of anything I have read from any era, just extraordinary!
Greg wrote: "I just finished the second third of book 2, and it is gorgeously written (and gorgeously translated by Fitzgerald). I was so moved by it, by the horror and the enormity of what was happening. But e...""Gorgeous" is definitely how I'd describe Book II as well. For some reason, Book I was a real struggle for me to follow the plot, but, with Book II, because the plot was easier for me to follow, I was able to enjoy the verse, the language, and the description of it all.
Towards the end, I found myself very affected when Aeneas goes back into the city to find his wife. Tremendous story-telling, and being removed thousands of years doesn't detract from the drama in the least.
Book 2, lines 890 - 900 are some of my favorite lines in Western literature.Amid that smother Neptune holds his place,
Below the wall's foundation drives his mace,
And heaves the building from the solid base.
(lines 890-892, Dryden)
We see what is happening to Troy is being done by the gods themselves! What could Aeneas possibly do to save Troy? The answer given by his divine mother is nothing, his only course of action is to save his family and flee.
Thomas wrote: "But a portent appears in the guise of a flame that lights upon little Iulus' head, followed by a sign from Jupiter that Anchises heeds. I find the flame curious... what exactly does that mean?."I like what Emil said about the destiny to become a great king. I'm not an expert by any means, but it rings true for me.
I wonder also if Virgil uses the image of a flame specifically with the sacred fires of Vesta in mind, a holy fire that is kept burning as a guarantee and symbol of eternal Rome. In Fitzgerald's translation, he refers to the halo as a "sacred fire" on line 895.
In some ways, Ascanius is carrying the promise of Rome with him as he flees, he's the promise of that future eternal flame.
Greg wrote: "I am not certain what the message would have been for his contemporary Romans, but I imagine after a whole series of wars between the Greeks and Romans, his contemporaries wouldn't have minded the unflattering depictions of the Greeks as dishorable? In this depiction, Virgil implies the Greeks could never have won the battle of Troy by war; so they had to resort to trickery."The height of dishonor is when Neoptolemus kills King Priam at his own altar -- as far as I know, this is Vergil's invention, and the intent is to demonize the Greeks, which in turn provides contrast to the piety of the Trojans.
But I also agree with your comment on the Prince. At the same time as he was demonizing the enemy, Vergil must have admired their cleverness. The fact that Aeneas' journey mirrors Odysseus' so closely, and the first half of the Aeneid mirrors the Odyssey in so many ways, must be evidence of this. Odysseus was the paragon of deception and trickery.
Sinisa wrote: "The first thing that came to my mind was the Day of Pentecost which is described in the New Testament. "I thought the same thing. It's not a valid reading, inasmuch as Vergil was writing about a century before Acts was written, but that detail never stopped Christians like Augustine and Dante from reading Vergil as a Christian prophet. It's quite possible what you say, that the flame was a common ancient symbol, used here by Vergil and later by the writer of Acts. But here the symbol needs to be corroborated by a sign from Zeus! (eta: I mean Jupiter!)
Thomas wrote: "I thought the same thing. It's not a valid reading, inasmuch as Vergil was writing about a century before Acts was written..."I'm sure the author of the Acts was aware of the Aeneid, Vergil's poem was a "must-read" back then.
I think the argument might actually work, but the other way around. Maybe I'll read the Acts again and see if I can find any other influences from Vergil.
Thomas wrote: "Greg wrote: "The height of dishonor is when Neoptolemus kills King Priam at his own altar -- as far as I know, this is Vergil's invention, and the intent is to demonize the Greeks, which in turn provides contrast to the piety of the Trojans."At the beginning of Euripides' Trojan Women, Poseidon, when describing the destruction of Troy, says, "beside the lift of the altar steps of Zeus Defender, Priam was cut down and died." Later, Hecuba speaking of Priam's death, says, "I saw it, with these eyes, I stood to watch his throat cut, next the altar of the protecting god." (trans. Richmond Lattimore.)
There are also depictions of Neoptolemos killing Priam on Greek vases, such as this one:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
So the idea certainly existed before Virgil, although Virgil's account is by far the most graphic.
Thomas wrote: "Sinisa wrote: "The first thing that came to my mind was the Day of Pentecost which is described in the New Testament. "I thought the same thing. It's not a valid reading, inasmuch as Vergil was w..."
The connection between the tongue of flame in the Aeneid and the tongue of flame in Acts is most interesting.
Two remarks: First, Virgil's first series of poems, the Eclogues, include the famous Fourth Eclogue, written in about 39 BC, in which Virgil prophesies the birth of a child who will change the world. The Christian tradition co-opted this poem as a prophecy about the birth of Jesus Christ; the tradition among scholars of Roman literature tentatively concludes that, although Virgil was at least somewhat familiar with some of the prophetic books in the Hebrew bible, Virgil was likely writing about a boy who might be born of the marriage between Marcus Antoninus and Octavian's sister (they didn't end up having a boy). Church fathers who adopted the view of Virgil as prophet include Augustine of Hippo and Constantine. And of course Dante nodded in favor of the theory of the Fourth Eclogue as being prophetic.
Second, and likely related to the first point, is that in the medieval and renaissance eras there was a tradition that Virgil was a magician, and various tales were told about his magical or prophetic powers (see the tale about him in Andrew Lang's Violet Fairy Book; also see von Eschenbach's Parzival).
All of this is to say that, although the Virgil-as-prophet theory is no longer current, there might have been early Christians around the time of writing Acts who knew enough of Virgil's writing to speculate that he was a pre-Christian prophet.
Thomas wrote: "In Book Two, Aeneas recounts the fall of Troy. The first section covers the story of the Trojan horse, the treachery of Sinon and the strange tragedy of Laocoon. Sinon gains the trust of the Trojan..."I find really interesting how Greeks are portrayed in Book 2. Basically, they are masters of deception. They 'pretend', 'hide', 'disguise'; their fleet is concealed...in their horse lie 'hidden frauds',
Does that negative stereotype of the Greeks still persist in the public sphere, centuries after Virgil? Maybe it does...I remember at the time of the financial crisis in 2008-2009 how much emphasis was put in the media (at least in Europe) on the fact that the Greek government had under-reported if not hidden data on its actual government debt...
I put the correspondence in time between Roma and Greece in an earlier message. I was looking to see what Rome was doing during the Golden Age of Greece. Wars, primarily, consolidating their territory, and not much philosophy. In a way, that was apples and oranges. History of Philosophy versus Military History.But Southern Italy was called Magna Grecia during Roman times.
Napoli, south of Rome, = Neo + Polis, New City, where I lived many years ago, still has the Greek street plan and names. The center is the crossroads of Dodeca Majora and Dodeca Minora, Main Streets Major and Minor. There is an open-air circus there, at random times.
Our own legacy is separate, the life of the Mind from the Greeks, and empire-building from Rome.
But it does not go far from my mind that Vergil was writing for Augustus, to please him, to flatter him.
It's interesting that the emotionality was a quality that Vergil's contemporaries would deem favorable.
tom wrote: "Second, and likely related to the first point, is that in the medieval and renaissance eras there was a tradition that Virgil was a magician, and various tales were told about his magical or prophetic powers...."Supposedly the spelling of Virgil (instead of Vergil) came about because a "virga" is a magician's rod... I'm not sure how much credence to lend that. Probably more convincing is the history of the Aeneid being used for bibliomancy, a sort of divination practiced by selecting verses at random and interpreting them as a kind of fortune telling. Roman rulers did this and apparently it went on up through the Renaissance.
Donnally wrote: "So the idea certainly existed before Virgil, although Virgil's account is by far the most graphic.."Thanks! I did a little digging and discovered that there is a lost epic called Iliou Persis, "the Sack of Troy,." The original is from the 7th cent BC, but have a summary of it from Proclus in the 5th cent CE. The chronology strikes me as familiar:
When the Trojans had discovered the Wooden Horse on the beach and deemed that the Greeks had fled, the priest Laocoon warned that it was a trap, and for this he was killed by giant serpents sent by the gods. The Trojans then took the Wooden Horse inside the city and the rest, as they say, was history. According to Proclus’ summary of the Iliou Persis, Aeneas had misgivings and abandoned the city after Laocoon’s death, taking part of the population with him. Most other (later) sources suggest that Aeneas didn’t leave the city until the Greeks had actually started sacking and burning it.
https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/...
Thanks, Thomas. I followed that link where I found the paragraph cited, and a great resource, Ancient World Magazine which looks like a lot of fun. January is "Roman History Month. Lots of articles about Rome of course. Featured now is a history of the chariot from Neolithic to Roman times.
I spent a lot of time in Roma as well as Napoli. The difference between them is representative of the difference between Roma and Greece. Rome is laid out and moves in an orderly fashion, and prosperous, while Napoli is chaotic, off-center, and less serious, and poor.
I'm curious if you all have thoughts about the scene around line 600, where Venus clears the mist that surrounds Aeneas and "dims his mortal sight." She is trying to persuade him to give up his hatred of Paris and Helen by showing him that it is the gods who are ultimately responsible for destroying Troy. She tells Aeneas to stop struggling against them. Fate is a major theme in the Aeneid. But when Aeneas is told to stop struggling, how does he avoid fatalism? Clearly he does not want to give up and he is not fatalistic by nature, but the smart thing here is to listen to Mom. Is the fate argument a ploy, and the vision of the gods a rhetorical device?
Thomas asked, Is the fate argument a ploy, and the vision of the gods a rhetorical device? If a ploy, it has served many for at least 3000 years. "God's Will." Just because these are Olympian gods, they nevertheless serve the same purpose, and the question would still be the same. To take the extreme example, was The Holocaust God's Will? The Gods, rhetorical? In Vergil's audience, there would be cynics and pious believers. Augustus would have to uphold the Establishment view that The Gods participated in Troy's downfall, as they do now (44 BCE) in the Roman story.
For us today (2022 CE) it is easier to dismiss the plethora of gods; than the contemporary Christian Monotheistic God.
Rhetorical usage of the gods at Troy, serve Vergel very well for storytelling, without blaspheming.
I myself hold more to Seneca's Stoical view of The Fates. He was becoming popular in Rome (post-Vergil), developing a sense of The Will. We make ourselves. (Greek Stoicism was not the same).
I referred to 44 BCE for a reason. It marks Julius Caesar's death and a comet seen in the night sky as an omen.Regarding "little Iulius" I can't help thinking of "Little
Ricky".
Thomas wrote: "I'm curious if you all have thoughts about the scene around line 600, where Venus clears the mist that surrounds Aeneas and "dims his mortal sight." She is trying to persuade him to give up his hat..."I've read this account of the destruction of Troy many times (first, memorably, in high school Latin) and I've come to see this passage as a needed relief from all the gore and destruction that surrounds it. Without this note of compassionate acceptance I think the narrative would be almost unreadable.
Also, this is a foreshadowing of something similar that occurs to Aeneas relative to Turnus at the end of Book XII.
Fitzgerald (975)I turned back alone
Dang it, that's good.
Donnally wrote: "Without this note of compassionate acceptance I think the narrative would be almost unreadable.."That is a great observation. Not only does it provide a rationale for Aeneas to save himself and his family, but it gives Aeneas' audience a moment of peace.
It surprises me how some of these old names are quite common in Brazil: Eneias, Creusa, Ulisses…
Greg @6 wrote: "(lines 722-723, 725-729)
"That was the end
Of Priam's age . . .
. . . he that in other days
Had ruled in pride so many lands and peoples,
The power of Asia.
On the distant shore
The vast trunk headless lies without a name."
It reminds me a little of Shelley's "Ozymadius," with the utter futility of human pride in the end...."
That came to mind for me as well.
Additionally, from the Introduction (Fagles):
"Any Roman who read these lines in the years after Virgil's poem was published or heard them recited would at once remember a real and recent ruler over 'the many lands of Asia,' whose headless corpse lay on the shore. It was the corpse of Gnaeus Pompeius (Pompey) ... after his defeat by Caesar ... his body lay headless on the Egyptian shore" (25).
"That was the end
Of Priam's age . . .
. . . he that in other days
Had ruled in pride so many lands and peoples,
The power of Asia.
On the distant shore
The vast trunk headless lies without a name."
It reminds me a little of Shelley's "Ozymadius," with the utter futility of human pride in the end...."
That came to mind for me as well.
Additionally, from the Introduction (Fagles):
"Any Roman who read these lines in the years after Virgil's poem was published or heard them recited would at once remember a real and recent ruler over 'the many lands of Asia,' whose headless corpse lay on the shore. It was the corpse of Gnaeus Pompeius (Pompey) ... after his defeat by Caesar ... his body lay headless on the Egyptian shore" (25).
Adelle wrote: "Additionally, from the Introduction (Fagles):"Any Roman who read these lines in the years after Virgil's poem was published or heard them recited would at once remember a real and recent ruler over 'the many lands of Asia,' ..."
Interesting Adelle! I'm reading the Fitzgerald one and have a different introduction. This quote even more so makes me think of the poem!
Thomas @10 wrote: "The height of dishonor is when Neoptolemus kills King Priam at his own altar -- as far as I know, this is Vergil's invention, and the intent is to demonize the Greeks, which in turn provides contrast to the piety of the Trojans...."
Both times I've read the Aeneid, I am forced to stop and wonder about Neoptolemus. As Achilles' son, I imagine he was quite young. And I wonder about how long he was in the armed camp and did that affect him? Did he grow up amongst men at war and death? Did it harden him? As probably the youngest there, did he feel he had to exceed all others in brutality to "prove" he was a man ... though probably a teen-ager. Also, I want to allow him a certain amount of revenge... The Trojans DID kill his father. Priam's son Paris killed Achilles. Probably rather recently. And he is his father's son. Achilles when enraged over the death of Patroclus killed Hector and dragged his body round and round. He treated the body with total dishonor. And, of course, Aeneis is telling this tale.
Part of me thinks it was dishonorable for Neoptolemus to kill Priam "at the altar." I suppose because I suppose altars to be sacred places. But then, on the other hand, Agamemnon killed his daughter on an altar. And he used deceit to get her there.
And I never forget that the Trojans dishonored the Greeks by taking Helen. Priam didn't make Paris return her. So Priam carries a good deal of guilt in this war.
But "at the altar." ??? I always wonder what the back story on Neoptolemus is.
Both times I've read the Aeneid, I am forced to stop and wonder about Neoptolemus. As Achilles' son, I imagine he was quite young. And I wonder about how long he was in the armed camp and did that affect him? Did he grow up amongst men at war and death? Did it harden him? As probably the youngest there, did he feel he had to exceed all others in brutality to "prove" he was a man ... though probably a teen-ager. Also, I want to allow him a certain amount of revenge... The Trojans DID kill his father. Priam's son Paris killed Achilles. Probably rather recently. And he is his father's son. Achilles when enraged over the death of Patroclus killed Hector and dragged his body round and round. He treated the body with total dishonor. And, of course, Aeneis is telling this tale.
Part of me thinks it was dishonorable for Neoptolemus to kill Priam "at the altar." I suppose because I suppose altars to be sacred places. But then, on the other hand, Agamemnon killed his daughter on an altar. And he used deceit to get her there.
And I never forget that the Trojans dishonored the Greeks by taking Helen. Priam didn't make Paris return her. So Priam carries a good deal of guilt in this war.
But "at the altar." ??? I always wonder what the back story on Neoptolemus is.
Why would Vergil compare the death of Priam to that of Pompey? I know what the notes say, but they don't say much beyond the fact that it is an inevitable allusion. Pompey was an opponent of Caesar in his bid to found an empire, and was popularly seen as a defender of the Republic. Pompey was a victim of treachery, as was Priam. The implication seems subtly anti-imperial, and anti-Augustan.
Adelle wrote: "But then, on the other hand, Agamemnon killed his daughter on an altar. And he used deceit to get her there"What Agamemnon did appalls me - in my heart, I half root for Clytemnestra's vengeance - but from the ancient perspective, that was a sacrifice to the gods and demanded by the gods, wasn't it? It was the capriciousness of the gods to demand it. And the altar is the proper place to sacrifice to the gods. The fact that Agamemnon deceives her is dishonorable perhaps but is probably meant as a mercy so she was unaware of her fate rather than ignominiously dragged there in fear and dread.
But no gods asked for Priam to be ritually sacrificed on an altar. He is killed at an altar that he presumably has gone to for protection. He is not being ritually sacrificed there but just murdered there. It is not even a clean death.
From a modern perspective, both are appalling, but from an ancient perspective where the gods are actually venerated and expected to be obeyed, I can feel a world of difference.
Thomas wrote: "The implication seems subtly anti-imperial, and anti-Augustan"Can you explain this a little more Thomas? I don't know enough about the period from a historical perspective to understand it.
Which implication? The implication of connecting the death of Priam to the death of Pompey? Do you mean that Virgil would have supported the empire as opposed to the Republic? Forgive my lack of knowledge in this - just trying to understand.
Could it be that the Fagles introduction is just comparing the two in that both were headless and fallen from a vast height of power to an almost forgotten position ("a vast trunk headless . . . without a name")?
I notice the misinterpretations... which bring sorrows.
In Book 1, Aeneas saw the partially built temple. "He saw before his eyes the Trojan battles." "What region of the earth, Achates, is not full of the story of our sorrow?"
But I think he sees it from his own point of view. As marking the sorrows of the Trojans, sympathetically. But it's part of temple for Juno who hates the Trojans. It's more likely celebrating the defeat of the Trojans. Great warriors on both sides. But Troy defeated. That's how it looks to me. Had Aeneas been more clear-eyed, things would have been different.
And in Book Two. The Trojans regarding the Greeks. "We thought they'd gone" (14). Free of anguish! The ships gone!
It was what they wanted to believe. Had the gods delivered them from threat? Then they should have heeded their priest.
Did they favor science over faith? The wise ones said "cut it open, search the hollow belly!"
But they chose to believe the Greek---although the Greeks were known for trickery .---who said what they wanted to hear.
Sinon. Wasn't he excellent? How he played his role! He's a psychological master, building boldly on "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
And he doesn't even put his soul at risk! When he lifts his hands to the heavens to swear, why, he swears "As [IF} by the altars and blaspheming swords" he got away from. Ha! There WERE none.
"as [if] one chosen for sacrifice." Ha!! He wasn't.
"And keep faith, Troy, as [IF] you are kept from harm
IF what I say proves true, IF what I give is great and valuable.'
What he says is not true, and Troy won't be kept from harm.
A truly great scene.
In Book 1, Aeneas saw the partially built temple. "He saw before his eyes the Trojan battles." "What region of the earth, Achates, is not full of the story of our sorrow?"
But I think he sees it from his own point of view. As marking the sorrows of the Trojans, sympathetically. But it's part of temple for Juno who hates the Trojans. It's more likely celebrating the defeat of the Trojans. Great warriors on both sides. But Troy defeated. That's how it looks to me. Had Aeneas been more clear-eyed, things would have been different.
And in Book Two. The Trojans regarding the Greeks. "We thought they'd gone" (14). Free of anguish! The ships gone!
It was what they wanted to believe. Had the gods delivered them from threat? Then they should have heeded their priest.
Did they favor science over faith? The wise ones said "cut it open, search the hollow belly!"
But they chose to believe the Greek---although the Greeks were known for trickery .---who said what they wanted to hear.
Sinon. Wasn't he excellent? How he played his role! He's a psychological master, building boldly on "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
And he doesn't even put his soul at risk! When he lifts his hands to the heavens to swear, why, he swears "As [IF} by the altars and blaspheming swords" he got away from. Ha! There WERE none.
"as [if] one chosen for sacrifice." Ha!! He wasn't.
"And keep faith, Troy, as [IF] you are kept from harm
IF what I say proves true, IF what I give is great and valuable.'
What he says is not true, and Troy won't be kept from harm.
A truly great scene.
Thomas @31 wrote: "Why would Vergil compare the death of Priam to that of Pompey? I know what the notes say, but they don't say much beyond the fact that it is an inevitable allusion. Pompey was an opponent of Caesar..."
You think perhaps I was too willing to accept that as a valid comparison? Mmm. Probably. I thought it quite striking, since Virgil had Priam's throat cut. Yet... perhaps not his head cut off.
"On the distant shore
The vast trunk headless lies without a name."
Just conjecture here. Possible lines of thought. (1) Priam was the head of a vast family (a" hundred daughters, hope of a line") ... all hope dead, corpses strewn and burned. Priam's line, great though it was, will never dominate. The line of Aeneas comes to the fore. Pompey was married to Caesar's daughter. He was a great general. But his line, too, is ended. Ceasar's line shall take precedence.
Both of these events served to help secure the position of Augustus.
(2) And might not this allusion reinforce in readers and listeners the fact that Augustus was part of the winning team.
Just thoughts. I DID accept the interpretation in the intro pretty readily. It just sounded so good.
You think perhaps I was too willing to accept that as a valid comparison? Mmm. Probably. I thought it quite striking, since Virgil had Priam's throat cut. Yet... perhaps not his head cut off.
"On the distant shore
The vast trunk headless lies without a name."
Just conjecture here. Possible lines of thought. (1) Priam was the head of a vast family (a" hundred daughters, hope of a line") ... all hope dead, corpses strewn and burned. Priam's line, great though it was, will never dominate. The line of Aeneas comes to the fore. Pompey was married to Caesar's daughter. He was a great general. But his line, too, is ended. Ceasar's line shall take precedence.
Both of these events served to help secure the position of Augustus.
(2) And might not this allusion reinforce in readers and listeners the fact that Augustus was part of the winning team.
Just thoughts. I DID accept the interpretation in the intro pretty readily. It just sounded so good.
Greg wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Additionally, from the Introduction (Fagles):"
I really like the Fitzgerald. I'm mostly reading that translation. But my Fitzgerald has no introduction. I got the quote from the introduction in the Fagles.
I really like the Fitzgerald. I'm mostly reading that translation. But my Fitzgerald has no introduction. I got the quote from the introduction in the Fagles.
Greg wrote: "Adelle wrote: "But then, on the other hand, Agamemnon killed his daughter on an altar. And he used deceit to get her there"
What Agamemnon did appalls me - in my heart, I half root for Clytemnestr..."
Appalls me, too. But when I read Iphigenia, I tend not to see it in religious terms. Although yes, it's told that way. I NEVER see Agamemnon as the least bit religious. I see him going through the motions. I always see Agamemnon as a desperate leader. A brute of a man intent on his own wants and needs. Willing to use the priesthood for his own advantage. He's got hundreds of ships there waiting and waiting for the winds to change. At some point, they're going to start deserting him. He has to do something. Something that will convince them to stay with him. And if he's lucky, the winds will oblige, too. But he sacrifices his DAUGHTER. Lies to his wife. Lies to his daughter. Maybe that's why he was particularly terrible at Troy. Maybe he felt some guilt over murdering his daughter.
What Agamemnon did appalls me - in my heart, I half root for Clytemnestr..."
Appalls me, too. But when I read Iphigenia, I tend not to see it in religious terms. Although yes, it's told that way. I NEVER see Agamemnon as the least bit religious. I see him going through the motions. I always see Agamemnon as a desperate leader. A brute of a man intent on his own wants and needs. Willing to use the priesthood for his own advantage. He's got hundreds of ships there waiting and waiting for the winds to change. At some point, they're going to start deserting him. He has to do something. Something that will convince them to stay with him. And if he's lucky, the winds will oblige, too. But he sacrifices his DAUGHTER. Lies to his wife. Lies to his daughter. Maybe that's why he was particularly terrible at Troy. Maybe he felt some guilt over murdering his daughter.
Adelle wrote: "Just conjecture here. Possible lines of thought. (1) Priam was the head of a vast family (a" hundred daughters, hope of a line") ... all hope dead, corpses strewn and burned. Priam's line, great though it was, will never dominate. The line of Aeneas comes to the fore. Pompey was married to Caesar's daughter. He was a great general. But his line, too, is ended. Ceasar's line shall take precedence."I like this Adelle. I don't know enough history to be sure of anything, but the fall of Priam's influence and his lapsing into near irrelavance is certainly suggested by the text as Fitzgerald translates it.
Regardless though, in Fitzgerald's translation Virgil is using this image of what is presumably a vast, headless, and nameless statue lying on the shore as the culminating description of Priam's fate. I imagine that's why your introduction in Fagles refers to another headless body lying on a shore.
It feels natural to me, and I would have taken your introduction at face value as well . . . though of course Thomas and others know much more about the political implications of that connection and whether Virgil would have actually connected them in that way. I don't know how iconic an idea it was that Pompey was lying on a shore headless either or if that was the writer of the introduction trying to make his ideas fit?
Greg wrote: "But no gods asked for Priam to be ritually sacrificed on an altar. He is killed at an altar that he presumably has gone to for protection. He is not being ritually sacrificed there but just murdered there. It is not even a clean death.."
Very good points. (Although I think Iphigenia, too, was murdered. I should read that play again. So much of it, I have forgotten.)
Very good points. (Although I think Iphigenia, too, was murdered. I should read that play again. So much of it, I have forgotten.)
Greg wrote: "Thomas wrote: "The implication seems subtly anti-imperial, and anti-Augustan"Can you explain this a little more Thomas? I don't know enough about the period from a historical perspective to under..."
The comparison seems a bit awkward to me because Vergil has made Priam an object of pity. Pompey too is then an object of pity... even though he stood in the way of Caesar, the father of Augustus (Julius Caesar adopted Augustus, at the time known as Octavian.) It seems odd that if the Aeneid is a glorification of Augustus, Vergil would make the audience feel pity for one of Augustus' father's opponents.
If it's a valid comparison, then it's a harsh one. Fate is a cruel master, and the pity we feel for Priam is wasted. But then what is the point of making Aeneas so human? Why doesn't Vergil cast Aeneas as another Achilles, or an Ajax, or Diomedes, or any of the other brutal Homeric heroes?
Or... should we feel pity for the suffering of our enemies?
Thomas wrote: "Greg wrote: "Thomas wrote: "The implication seems subtly anti-imperial, and anti-Augustan"Can you explain this a little more Thomas? I don't know enough about the period from a historical perspec..."
Thanks Thomas! That helps me understand a lot better!
I like the questions you're asking too, but I'll wait for others with better historical knowledge to pose some theories.
Thomas @40 wrote: "Or... should we feel pity for the suffering of our enemies?
..."
The message I've come away with is (1) being human, we pity others who suffer, (2) but duty has priority, and what must be done, must be done. (view spoiler)
Consider, too, how pity moved the Trojans and Dido to make decisions not in their best interests.
The Trojans: "worn by winds on every sea, [we] entreat you" (F 713). Dido's people had had a good policy. "Severe conditions and the kingdom's youth constrain me to these measures, to protect our long frontiers with guards" (23). Should have continued protecting their borders.
And the Trojans fell for "the whimpering speech" of Sidon. To their ruin. They would have done better to have listened to their Reaganesque wise ones. Cut it open. Pity, but verify.
Maybe that's why the Romans became known for their legal system. They coldly followed the laws. Pity might come into play sentencing, but FIRST the facts must be considered according to the law.
..."
The message I've come away with is (1) being human, we pity others who suffer, (2) but duty has priority, and what must be done, must be done. (view spoiler)
Consider, too, how pity moved the Trojans and Dido to make decisions not in their best interests.
The Trojans: "worn by winds on every sea, [we] entreat you" (F 713). Dido's people had had a good policy. "Severe conditions and the kingdom's youth constrain me to these measures, to protect our long frontiers with guards" (23). Should have continued protecting their borders.
And the Trojans fell for "the whimpering speech" of Sidon. To their ruin. They would have done better to have listened to their Reaganesque wise ones. Cut it open. Pity, but verify.
Maybe that's why the Romans became known for their legal system. They coldly followed the laws. Pity might come into play sentencing, but FIRST the facts must be considered according to the law.
Sinon alone would not have convinced the Trojans to take the wooden horse into Troy. They were still debating until the death of Laocoon. That was the deciding factor. It was the work of a God (Neptune) assuring that Troy would be destroyed.
The comparison of the death of Priam to that of Pompey is an idea I hadn't considered before, but it strikes me as valid. (I also like the echo in the names of Pompey-Priam, Augustus-Aeneas, though this is most likely frivolous).Here's how I might try to interpret it: The death of Priam was brought about by the gods who were determined to destroy Troy. Likewise Pompey was not favored by the gods. However, the manner in which Priam was killed was sacrilegious, like the manner in which Pompey was killed. So these deaths had to be avenged. Julius Caesar was struck down in large part because of the sacrilegious death of Pompey, just as the Greeks were punished for the sacrilegious death of Priam. So it was Augustus, who was unstained by the sacrilege, who was destined to establish the Roman Empire, just as Aeneas is destined to found the Roman people.
Donnally wrote: "The comparison of the death of Priam to that of Pompey is an idea I hadn't considered before, but it strikes me as valid. (I also like the echo in the names of Pompey-Priam, Augustus-Aeneas, though..."
I REALLY like your thoughts in #44. But for myself, I see Sinon and pity for him as determining the Trojans.
Yes, the snakes killing Laocoon was a significant sign:
"And now another sign, more fearful still" (Fitzgerald 273).
But prior to that,
"This fraud of Sinon, his accomplished lying
Won us over; a tall tale and fake tears
Had captured us, whom neither Diomedes
Nor Larisean Achilles overpowered,
Nor ten long years, nor all their thousand ships" (Fitz. 268-272).
Similar in Fagles 252):
"Trapped by his craft, that cunning liar Sinon,
We believed his story. His tears, his treachery seized [us]"
I keep getting the message that one shouldn't let one's emotions determine one's actions.
Paris, in choosing Aphrodite, "allowed himself to be seduced by sensual love."
https://greek-gods.info/greek-gods/ap...
He chose --- poorly.
And then he further indulges himself and leverages his power and position and runs off with a powerful man's wife. How exactly would taking the wife of Meneleus benefit the people of Troy? It brings the enmity of the Greeks.
Because it's timely, I think now of the lyrics from that Meatloaf song, "I would do anything for love. But I won't do that."
That's Aeneas. He does love. And he would do almost anything for Dido. Perhaps because at this point in the story he's still more Trojan than Roman. But he won't remain in Carthage for her. He pulls himself right in the end (Well... right for a Roman), back to duty, and cuts those emotional bonds and acts as a leader with a task would act.
I REALLY like your thoughts in #44. But for myself, I see Sinon and pity for him as determining the Trojans.
Yes, the snakes killing Laocoon was a significant sign:
"And now another sign, more fearful still" (Fitzgerald 273).
But prior to that,
"This fraud of Sinon, his accomplished lying
Won us over; a tall tale and fake tears
Had captured us, whom neither Diomedes
Nor Larisean Achilles overpowered,
Nor ten long years, nor all their thousand ships" (Fitz. 268-272).
Similar in Fagles 252):
"Trapped by his craft, that cunning liar Sinon,
We believed his story. His tears, his treachery seized [us]"
I keep getting the message that one shouldn't let one's emotions determine one's actions.
Paris, in choosing Aphrodite, "allowed himself to be seduced by sensual love."
https://greek-gods.info/greek-gods/ap...
He chose --- poorly.
And then he further indulges himself and leverages his power and position and runs off with a powerful man's wife. How exactly would taking the wife of Meneleus benefit the people of Troy? It brings the enmity of the Greeks.
Because it's timely, I think now of the lyrics from that Meatloaf song, "I would do anything for love. But I won't do that."
That's Aeneas. He does love. And he would do almost anything for Dido. Perhaps because at this point in the story he's still more Trojan than Roman. But he won't remain in Carthage for her. He pulls himself right in the end (Well... right for a Roman), back to duty, and cuts those emotional bonds and acts as a leader with a task would act.
Well, Greg, now you made me wonder all morning about this. I went back and re-read parts of Iphigeneia. Now I have to apologize to Agamemnon. I maligned him badly.
I remembered only that he had called for his daughter to come and that he hadn’t stopped the knife. But first, it seems, he hated the decision he had to make regarding his daughter. Indeed, he sent a follow-up letter to Clytemnestra instructing her to NOT send their daughter.
But fate… Iphigenia arrived.
Concerning which, I wonder…WAS it a sacrifice demanded by gods? I’m not so sure. Kalchas, the prophet, SAID it was. But might not Kalchas have misinterpreted the signs? I put that out there as we see in the Aeneid people misinterpreting all the time. And, I googled a little. There doesn’t seem to be much support for the idea that the Greeks engaged in human sacrifices (I found one maybe). In which case, might not Iphigenia have been a sacrilegious sacrifice?
Kalchas, perhaps, after months of failure, “reading” the signs, [misreading?], as requiring a shock-and-awe action.
I don;t know., I wonder. I always wonder about the characters.
I remembered only that he had called for his daughter to come and that he hadn’t stopped the knife. But first, it seems, he hated the decision he had to make regarding his daughter. Indeed, he sent a follow-up letter to Clytemnestra instructing her to NOT send their daughter.
But fate… Iphigenia arrived.
Concerning which, I wonder…WAS it a sacrifice demanded by gods? I’m not so sure. Kalchas, the prophet, SAID it was. But might not Kalchas have misinterpreted the signs? I put that out there as we see in the Aeneid people misinterpreting all the time. And, I googled a little. There doesn’t seem to be much support for the idea that the Greeks engaged in human sacrifices (I found one maybe). In which case, might not Iphigenia have been a sacrilegious sacrifice?
Kalchas, perhaps, after months of failure, “reading” the signs, [misreading?], as requiring a shock-and-awe action.
I don;t know., I wonder. I always wonder about the characters.
I found this section very moving as others have said. Thinking about the end of Troy, dramatically Virgil has to resolve a contradiction in Aeneas’ character and his fate — 1) Aeneas is a patriotic warrior who would rather fight to the death in defense of his city, but 2) Aeneas is dutiful/pious and will leave the battlefield to go to Italy and start a dynasty.
The poet resolves this dilemma with what seems a natural ebb and flow of emotion and actions by Aeneas. First, Hector’s ghost appears to warn Aeneas “O goddess-born! escape, by timely flight/ The flames and horrors of this fatal night…Now Troy to thee commends her future state…”
Aeneas goes outside to see for himself what’s going on and finds “Hector’s faith was manifestly cleared.” But ignoring the rest of what Hector told him, he runs out “Resolv’d on death, resolv’d to die in arms”. “Witness, ye heavens! I live not by my fault; I strove to have deserv’d the death I sought.”
After much fighting and after he witnesses the death of Priam, Aeneas remembers his father and his family, and heads home. But he is diverted again by the sight of Helen and a desire for revenge. His mother appears and tells him he should leave Helen alone, think of his family, and understand it is the gods and not the acts of men that have brought the destruction of Troy.
Aeneas then goes home where now his father refuses to leave. Aeneas is ready to dash out into battle again when his wife stops him momentarily. When the flaming vision and meteor/comet finally persuade his father to go, they add to Aeneas’ resolution as well.
In their retreat through the final battle, Creusa is lost, and now Aeneas races back to find her. Her ghost appears and counsels him to go. He pays more attention to her ghost than to the ghost of Hector and leaves to join his father and son.
So Aeneas does fight heroically to save the city and only finally yields to his fate. All his actions with their back and forth offer Virgil opportunities to show the fall of the city in this final battle.
Virgil is also subverting the Iliad’s story by making the Trojans the heroes of the story and the Greeks lying, dishonorable men. I agree Priam’s death by the altar is meant as an act of impiety, and there are other examples in the text. (I’m not sure how good the Romans were at honoring temples when sacking a city btw)
This book is so dramatic. The Fall of Troy is one episode that puts us there. We really feel the despair that the Trojans felt.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Prince (other topics)The Aeneid (other topics)
Laocoon is a priest of Neptune and the son of King Priam. He warns the Trojans not to trust the Greeks, uttering the famous phrase "timeo Danaos et dona ferentes." What is the meaning of his death and how he dies?
The second section is a dramatic marvel, one of the great literary descriptions of destruction in war. Aeneas is slipping into sleep just as the Greeks emerge from the wooden horse, and Hector appears to him in a dream and tells him to run. Aeneas is startled awake, and contrary to Hector's advice he wants to rush into battle, as hopeless as it is. As he says, "The beaten have one hope: to lose all hope." What follows is a description of the brutality of the Greeks, including the unholy slaughter of old King Priam by Neoptolemos as Priam appeals to him as a suppliant.
The last section concerns Aeneas' escape and his attempt to save his family. As he is searching for his family he comes across Helen (an odd episode thought by some not to be the work of Vergil.) Aeneas is about to kill her in an act of vengeance when Venus, his mother, appears and stops him. She tells him to give up his hatred of Helen and Paris, "since it is the gods who are so cruel and topple wealthy Troy." She then reveals the gods themselves, not the Greeks, wreaking havoc on Troy. How are we to interpret this?
Finally, Aeneas returns to his family. His father, Anchises, wishes to fall with the city. Aeneas objects and wants to return to the fight. But a portent appears in the guise of a flame that lights upon little Iulus' head, followed by a sign from Jupiter that Anchises heeds. I find the flame curious... what exactly does that mean?
The other puzzling thing is that when they leave the city, Aeneas carries his father, leads Iulus by his side, but has his wife Creusa follow, "far back." Of course she gets separated in the fray and Aeneas ends up going back into the city, risking his life to find her. Why did he not have her by his side with the rest?
So just a few questions. I know there are more!