Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Virgil, Aeneid - Revisited
>
Book Twelve and the Aeneid as a whole
date
newest »
newest »
Good to know re Ursula LeGuin's Lavinia - I've been wondering about this one.From memory, this sounds right - here's a public domain link to book 12 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/228/2...
I just finished, and I want to say first that I really enjoyed this book and reading it with the group in particular.As far as the ending, with my modern perspective it feels awfully petty and sad, to end on an act of vengeance like this. Here we are with a grand new empire on the verge of creation, but instead of focusing on that with the final lines of the poem, it ends only on death and "indignity":
(book XII, lines 1297-1298)
"And with a groan for that indignity
His spirit fled into the gloom below."
In some ways, it does seem a fitting end for the human drama. After the numerous times Turnus flees (or is forced to flee by Juno and Juturnia) and after the massive bloodbath caused by his refusals to meet Aeneas in one-on-one combat, it makes a kind of sense. But it doesn't seem a fitting end to the whole epic of The Aeneid, which is not just the simple human story of Aeneas and Turnus but more importantly the story of the founding of an empire! I wonder, if Virgil had lived to polish the work, would he have added at least a few lines afterward to bring back in the glory being born? The tone of the final lines seems incongruous with the poems' main purpose.
But oddly, this is at least the third time someone is undone by taking spoils from enemies:
There was Euryalus who after taking Massapus' helm as war booty is betrayed by that very helmet, "glimmering" in "the clear night's half-darkness" and giving him away. Then, there was the warrior Camilla who is killed while "blindly . . . following" a priest in hopes of his "golden plunder." Now, Turnus himself is undone by the belt he has taken as booty from Pallas.
It does seem that something is going on here. It could be that Virgil simply disapproves of the practice of taking spoils from those defeated on the battlefield. Or maybe it's something more general: perhaps Virgil sees in Roman history some dangers in the lure of wealth and its ability to corrupt noble purposes, and he wants to express that concern? I don't know enough about the world of Virgil to say, but I don't think it's a coincidence that this has occurred at least three times in the last hundred pages.
Thanks for mentioning Lavinia too Thomas. I'm a big fan of Ursula K. Le Guin and have read at least a dozen of her books. But I have not read or even heard of that one somehow. Now that The Aeneid is so fresh in my mind, I'm very curious to read it! Do you like what you've read of it so far?
I feel like the second half of the Aeneid is similar to the Iliad, so I would expect the ending that Virgil planned on to contain the funeral of Turnus.
In the end, Virgil decides between Odysseus in favor of Achilles. The book ends in Anger, where the Iliad had begun and seems to be a prequel to Turnus in Hell. But Turnus is not a hero. While this ending shows Aeneas more Achilles, recall that from the Iliad Hector's brave lunge at Achilles, knowing he would die, has been held as a glorious noble death. Maybe Juno has finally won over Aeneas. She has prevented him from being the Odyssean Noble King.
Maybe Virgil wants Augustus to retain the bloody image for the battles still to come?
There is much fodder for thought.
Greg wrote: "I just finished, and I want to say first that I really enjoyed this book and reading it with the group in particular.As far as the ending, with my modern perspective it feels awfully petty and sa..."
Greg wrote: "."
Glad you enjoyed it, Greg. I find it's always more satisfying to read with the group. Most, if not all, of the books we read are so rich that it's almost impossible to pick up on all of the nuances on your own. At least that's been my experience.
Greg wrote: "...it does seem that something is going on here. It could be that Virgil simply disapproves of the practice of taking spoils from those defeated on the battlefield. Or maybe it's something more general...
I've been wondering about this since the Euryalus & Nisus episode. Maybe it says something about greed, and its consequences? And when I think of Turnus with the belt of Pallas, I also wonder if it isn't just material greed, but greed for glory as well.
That's one major difference I see between Virgil and Homer -- for Homer there doesn't seem to be any possible dishonor associated with glory in battle. Virgil humanizes the violence in a way Homer doesn't. Aeneas loses himself in rage when he kills Lausus, but he grieves this afterwards. (Book 10) He realizes that Lausus is still somebody's son, (even if his father is the awful Mezentius) and he thinks of Anchises, his own father.
I wonder if the ending is problematic because we don't get to see the humanity of Aeneas after he kills Turnus. Not that he should regret it; Virgil and Jupiter are both clear that Turnus is fated to die. But the scene lacks a kind of humanity we've come to expect from Virgil.
Lavinia is really interesting in that respect. LeGuin is quite true to Virgil. It isn't a revisionist telling, but she fills in some gaps and tries to answer questions that Virgil leaves unanswered. It's an amazing book in that respect, though I can see why some readers find it ponderous.
Thomas wrote: "I've been wondering about this since the Euryalus & Nisus episode. Maybe it says something about greed, and its consequences? And when I think of Turnus with the belt of Pallas, I also wonder if it isn't just material greed, but greed for glory as well.That's one major difference I see between Virgil and Homer -- for Homer there doesn't seem to be any possible dishonor associated with glory in battle. Virgil humanizes the violence in a way Homer doesn't. Aeneas loses himself in rage when he kills Lausus, but he grieves this afterwards. (Book 10) He realizes that Lausus is still somebody's son, (even if his father is the awful Mezentius) and he thinks of Anchises, his own father.
I wonder if the ending is problematic because we don't get to see the humanity of Aeneas after he kills Turnus. Not that he should regret it; Virgil and Jupiter are both clear that Turnus is fated to die. But the scene lacks a kind of humanity we've come to expect from Virgil."
I love all of this Thomas, and it rings true for me in many ways.
Now that you mention it, I think that's one of the things I really like about Virgil - he does humanize the violence and humanize things in general. Your example of Lausus is a perfect one. Aeneas is empathetic enough to see himself in this soldier he has killed, at least in terms of his filial piety, and this is part of what draws me to him as a character. I guess you're right; I had come to expect more from him.
As far as what you say about greed for glory, that rings true too. Some things in the text in the other episodes hint at that interpretation as well. Such as in Camilla's downfall:
(lines 1058-1062)
"Camilla
Began to track this man, her heart's desire
Either to fit luxurious Trojan gear
On a temple door, or else herself to flaunt
That golden plunder."
It does seem that she wants these golden items from the priest not merely to possess them but to show them, perhaps fitting them on a temple door. This would be for her reputation and glory, I assume, to show off her kills and her prowess.
I had contributed only a little to this discussion, though the book is the one which gives a lot of material for thoughts. However, life had its own plans, and the story of the war provoked by stupid resentment of insecure gods became very personal. Who could imagine this? Still, I am glad to read it with you and with your help to see meanings and themes which otherwise would elude me.
According to Aeneas time and place this
is
the right ending, at least for me.Thomas wrote: "I wonder if the ending is problematic because we don't get to see the humanity of Aeneas after he kills Turnus"
Maybe because after killing Turnus, Aeneas turned into something above "humanity": he became the father of the greatest empire.
Alexey wrote: "I had contributed only a little to this discussion, though the book is the one which gives a lot of material for thoughts. However, life had its own plans, and the story of the war provoked by stup..."Thanks for sticking with us, Alexey. Current events have not made it easier to read Aeneid. Many many books have been written about war, but few speak as directly to the reasons why wars happen. None of them are entirely satisfactory, and Aeneid is no exception. My feeling is that the best ones simply ask the unanswerable question "why?" in the most compelling way.
Emil wrote: "Maybe because after killing Turnus, Aeneas turned into something above "humanity": he became the father of the greatest empire. ."One thing we didn't get around to was the imperialist reading of Aeneid, and whether the book is an argument for it or a subtle condemnation of it. Some say it was written as a glorification of Augustus, so it has to be read as praising imperialism; but at the same time Vergil does not spare us the suffering and sorrow that are the price of that imperialism.
I also wonder how the imperialist argument can succeed in the light of the fact that Aeneas never wanted an empire. It was thrust upon him. His "duty" is not his own, just as leaving Dido was not his choice. "Italy is against my will," he tells her. Duty to country, to the gods, to the past -- I think the book asks whether these ideas are worthy of the sacrifice Aeneas makes, both of himself and those who suffer with or because of him.
I am one of those passive member who follow the discussion but don't contribute much themselves. I am very glad that I decided to read this book with the group. Your comments helped me a lot. Many times I had to turn back and reread some parts of the book because of you commenting on things that I haven't even noticed at all. This was not an easy read for me but it's amazing that we can read something written 2000 years ago and still relate to the story. Thank you all and enjoy your reading life!
Thomas wrote: "I also wonder how the imperialist argument can succeed in the light of the fact that Aeneas never wanted an empire. It was thrust upon him"Your comment reminds me of Shakespeare's "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.”
No sane person would ever wish for an empire, anyone who's not a megalomaniac would see it like Aeneas: a duty, or even worse, a burden.
Thomas wrote: "One thing we didn't get around to was the imperialist reading of Aeneid, and whether the book is an argument for it or a subtle condemnation of it.
Does it work both ways? It is imperialist propaganda, but Vergil managed to attach a "to be use with caution" label on it.
"Fate" itself seems like propaganda to me, at least in the way Vergil employs it. Not only is it destiny, as in the literal meaning of fatum as "what is written," but it draws on its etymological root fas to mean what is right or lawful. So the way things are can be no other way, and that way is right by divine ordination. This seems to be a handy way of justifying the status quo, no matter what it happens to be.
The problem with fate is that nobody knows "what is written" until it happens. Vergil is making the whole story after the empire was already built. The whole poem is a propaganda piece, if you ask me, but it was beautifuly written. Why do you think that Vergil wanted it to be destroyed before it's "published"? He was not happy with it? He didn't like the message of the poem?
Sinisa wrote: "The problem with fate is that nobody knows "what is written" until it happens. Vergil is making the whole story after the empire was already built. The whole poem is a propaganda piece, if you ask ..."Oh, I thought he wanted it destroyed because he knew he was dying and it wasn't yet polished or finished the way he originally intended?
There are numerous inconsistencies and lacunas that indicate Vergil was not finished editing Aeneid. Most of them are minor, but one that stands out to me is the prophecy about the Trojans eating their tables -- in Book 7 it is said to be given by Anchises, but it was given by Celaeno in Book 3. There are over 50 unfinished lines as well. The legend is that Vergil wrote 2 or 3 lines per day... whether that's true or not, he was clearly a painstaking writer. It's shocking to us that he would have wanted what we consider a masterpiece destroyed, but he also had a reputation as a perfectionist.
Just some thoughts on the poem as a whole. I'm not a classics scholar, and I'll be going way out on a limb with some of these comments, but I'm trying to think about this poem in the context of Roman civilization at the time it was written.Virgil was born 70 BC, and as a young man must have been inspired by Lucretius' De Rerum Natura. Lucretius died 55 BC, when Virgil was 15 years old, and the poem (which I reread recently) is an epic-length work in dactylic hexameters describing the creation and maintenance of the universe. It is ambitious and joyful. Virgil's ambition can be seen as something similar: an epic poem justifying the creation of the Roman Empire.
The most important event in Virgil's life was the 13 year period of civil war from 44 to 31, beginning with the assassination of Julius Caesar and ending with the battle of Actium, establishing Augustus as the first Roman emperor. This must have been a rather terrifying period for many Romans. The triumvirate of Antony, Lepidus and Octavian instituted something like a reign of terror in which many (including Cicero) were killed. The peace ushered in by Augustus' rule was a notable cause for celebration. Augustus and his close friend Maecenas were admirers of Virgil's verse. It is said that Virgil read the Georgics to them after Augustus returned from the battle of Actium.
That said, it's understandable that Augustus would enlist Virgil in the project of writing an epic meant to depict Roman history as a triumphant progress towards his empire. And Virgil must have been excited by the idea. He worked on it for eleven years, he must have known he had created a masterpiece, yet at the end he wanted it destroyed. Why?
I've read this poem many times. In fact, I read it two times last year before reading it again with the group. It's a poem that has somehow gotten under my skin. Virgil touches all the bases: he echoes the major Homeric plot points and at every opportunity praises the coming empire. By the end, I imagine he must have felt very much like his protagonist in fulfilling his destined duty. Yet somehow, Aeneas is not alive for me as a person in the way Homer brought Achilles and Odysseus to life.
Looking at the poem, the major theme is very clear: the glorious founding of the Roman Empire which will bring peace to the world. This was present to Virgil's conscious mind. Yet I think probably in a subconscious way, the overall arc of the poem is something different. The one constant, that Virgil uses to get the action going whenever things threaten to become stagnant, is the conflict between Juno and Venus. I think that is the true heart of this poem. Juno embodies hatred, her allies are the Furies, notably Allecto. Venus, Aeneas's mother, embodies love, her ally is her son Cupid. The conflict between them is present all throughout the poem. There is one notable example in Book II when Aeneas is on the point of killing Helen, Venus appears before him and turns him away from this act of hatred. Later, Venus lures Aeneas into a love affair with Dido, which Aeneas dutifully must break off because Carthage must be destroyed.
But at the end, when Aeneas kills Turnus, it is an act of hatred, not an act of love, that is the foundation of the Empire. It is thematically all wrong, and I don't think Virgil saw any way out of it. Ultimately, he had failed in his conscious goal of celebrating the pax Romana, because of his subconscious recognition that peace is not the triumph of love, it simply means you've killed all your enemies. As Tacitus was to say: "They make a desert and call it peace."
And here's where I'm going way out on a limb. He wanted his masterpiece destroyed, not because of a few imperfections (inevitable in a work of such scope) but because at its root it was a failure and he knew it. I think in Book X he toyed with another ending in which Turnus was just borne away and never reappeared, but this was obviously unsatisfactory for any number of reasons. No, the poem had to end in a blood bath. In the end, hatred won. Worrying about this, he grew sick and died.
I will not be joining the group for its read of Virginia Woolf, who at the moment is not on my radar. I am buried too deeply in the Latin moment. I think the next thing I will read is the third great Latin Poem, The Metamorphoses by Ovid This was one that Augustus did not approve of. It got Ovid exiled to the Black Sea. I'd like to get an idea why.
Donnally wrote: "Just some thoughts on the poem as a whole. I'm not a classics scholar, and I'll be going way out on a limb with some of these comments, but I'm trying to think about this poem in the context of Rom..."Donnally, I don't have enough background to respond adequately to some of your points.
But I love when you say:
"This must have been a rather terrifying period for many Romans. The triumvirate of Antony, Lepidus and Octavian instituted something like a reign of terror in which many (including Cicero) were killed. The peace ushered in by Augustus' rule was a notable cause for celebration."
That brings home the period for me, and it helps explain why Virgil wanted to write this celebration of Augustus' line.
It's interesting though that you say you felt Aeneas was less alive. For me, I felt more tied to Aeneas than I remember with the Homeric heroes. I strongly related to Aeneas and how he felt; in his doubts and struggles, he seemed more open and empathetic and "real" to me. But it's been a while since I read the Homeric epics, and I'm not certain how I would feel if I re-read them now.
Donnally wrote: "I think in Book X he toyed with another ending in which Turnus was just borne away and never reappeared, but this was obviously unsatisfactory for any number of reasons. No, the poem had to end in a blood bath. In the end, hatred won. Worrying about this, he grew sick and died."Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Donnally. It seems appropriate to show some bravery at the end of Aeneid, so I appreciate your going out on a limb. But now I can't resist the urge to shake the limb a little. What evidence is there that Vergil thought about a different ending?
I agree that the violent and angry ending does seem thematically wrong, but in one way at least it seems right to me. Turnus is a stand-in for Achilles, and Aeneas is a new Hector. There is a lot of fighting to do in the time between Aeneas and Augustus, and in this sense it seems right that it begin with a dramatic victory over an enemy in the cast of Achilles.
Thomas wrote: "Donnally wrote: "I think in Book X he toyed with another ending in which Turnus was just borne away and never reappeared, but this was obviously unsatisfactory for any number of reasons. No, the po..."I have no evidence whatsoever. It was just an idea. And the last couple books almost seem unnecessary to me, as if Virgil is just dragging things out before the inevitable.
Donnally wrote: "Just some thoughts on the poem as a whole. I'm not a classics scholar, and I'll be going way out on a limb with some of these comments, but I'm trying to think about this poem in the context of Rom..."Like Donnally, I am very much involved in the Latin world. The Greco-Latin world of our 3 classics, Iliad, Odyssey, and Aeneid.
I'm not going to sacrifice Virginia, though; just run parallel tracks.
The 12th book of The Aeneid, with its ambivalent ending magnetizes me to join the ending of The Iliad and thereby The Odyssey.
A feast of intertexuality.
I'm not a Classical Philologist, but I play one on The Net.
I do have some nations bubbling in my slow cooker, aiming to ultimately put some mojo on Aeneis's last ramble. For the moment it keeps percolating in the stewpot, clotting up around the very first word of the first book of our Western Canon: mênis. Translated variously: wrath, rage, anger, and pervasive menace.
But tonight's global news off the Russian War in Ukraine has me over-eager to throw this in: mênis in its time, the time of Homer, meant a very specific kind of Rage. It could only be used for divinity, but in our present cases Heroes who would strive to be divine. The hubris of the aspiration is not well-concealed,
I am provoked to bring this out by the behavior of this human Man who would be God/king, Vladimir Putin. He embodies wrath as divine retribution, "the bad king". He has taken up a holy rage. His aspiration may equal "mênis". Is he the sinister adumbration of Achilles or Aeneas? With chemical and nuclear weapons, he is indeed a bad boy and wants to be king of the world.
I want to briefly introduce that motif, which brings our delving into Classical matters up to date.
Greg wrote: "It's interesting though that you say you felt Aeneas was less alive. For me, I felt more tied to Aeneas than I remember with the Homeric heroes. I strongly related to Aeneas and how he felt; in his doubts and struggles, he seemed more open and empathetic and "real" to me. But it's been a while since I read the Homeric epics, and I'm not certain how I would feel if I re-read them now."Each time I read Aeneid I like the poem more, and I understand Aeneas less. Aeneas starts out strangely for an epic hero, depressed and defeated. He forgets his wife behind him when he flees Troy. When he tells the story of the death of Priam in Book 2, it's as if he were a distant observer, helpless to do anything. He doesn't try to help Priam, and when it's over, he discovers that all his men have committed suicide. (How did he not notice this happening?) He is reminded of his own family and rushes back to them but is distracted by Helen, whom he would like to destroy but he is stopped by Venus, who draws away a black cloud so he can see that his anger is fruitless -- the gods are responsible for all this violence and chaos. It's as if a divine disruption or imbalance has infected the human world, and Aeneas simply has to go on with it, bear a shield that tells of a future that he can't possibly understand in order to found a city that Juno insists will make Troy and the memory of the Trojans vanish. And if that were to actually happen, how can the Aeneid itself exist?
One more thought about The Aeneid in the context of Roman civilization at the time it was written. I mentioned the period of civil war that ended with the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. As I thought a bit more about this, I realized that one important basis of the quarrel between Octavius and Antony was Antony's love affair with Cleopatra, and suddenly the affair between Aeneas and Dido came into clear focus. Given the importance of this event in Roman history and the fact that it occurred within the recent memory of the poem's audience, it's impossible that the Romans of that time would not have made the connection. Had Aeneas stayed with Dido, he would have become Antony. By leaving her, he became Augustus. What bothers us as signs of Aeneas's ruthlessness and duplicity would have been seen clearly as the mark of his greatness.It's interesting, and so far as I know it's not something that has been mentioned in literary criticism of the poem.
Thomas wrote: in order to found a city that Juno insists will make Troy and the memory of the Trojans vanish.At the end, when Juno reconciles with Zeus, she makes him promise that Aeneas's tribe will NOT be called Trojans, but Latins or Romans, because the city will not be called Troy, but Rome.
Even though Aeneas was "depressed and defeated" and left his wife behind, that is "back story". When the poem opens Aeneas has been through an Odyssey of travel until he gets to Sicily. That's where it opens, and he is on his way Home, like Odysseus. Juno can't abide that. She muscles in on Virgil, and asks what? am I not to have any say in this from the start? And she gets Aeolus to unleash the winds and drive Aeneas to Carthage He is not going home; he's more like Achilles, parked in Dido's bed and leaving off of his mission.
Sam wrote: "...parked in Dido's bed..."????
Don't know enough about what could have been the history of Carthage (if Aeneas had stayed) to make an intelligent remark here, can only say I am reminded of this passage from NYT's interview of "conservative men" this week: "Christopher: 'Yes. You can't observe the natural animal kingdom and see the separation between masculine and feminine and then all of a sudden think that we, as humans, are just going to be all one-noted We're masculine and feminine for a reason."
@Lily. Love your questions? Not sure I get the point of the interview quotation, especially since it's from "conservative men", but I do think every human is some mixture, with varying degrees of awareness. My jibe about Aeneas as Dido's "boy-toy" was a rough attempt to compare this to Achilles' being "parked in his tent" as it were, while his fellow warriors were being decimated by the Trojans.And if you by any chance know the "reason" for this, I'd dig it if you'd hip me to it.
Sam wrote: "Thomas wrote: in order to found a city that Juno insists will make Troy and the memory of the Trojans vanish.At the end, when Juno reconciles with Zeus, she makes him promise that Aeneas's tribe w..."
Yes, precisely. It's why Ascanius has two names -- a Trojan (Ascanius) and a Latin (Iulus). By the end of the book, Ascanius is gone. Only Iulus remains. Juno will get her wish --Latins will intermarry with Trojans, and eventually only the Latins and their heritage will remain. A later poet will have to create the history of the Roman people, the Trojans and their race having disappeared. (In Greek, the verb to create is "poiein," from which we get "poetry".) In this sense it's impossible for the Aeneid to exist except as a poem, or to use the term Socrates prefers, a lie. I wonder a bit if this legerdemain is what Vergil may have regretted on his deathbed.
Lily wrote: You can't observe the natural animal kingdom and see the separation between masculine and feminine and then all of a sudden think that we, as humans, are just going to be all one-noted We're masculine and feminine for a reason."I was thinking about why focus only on the gender dichotomy when we also have some other interesting yin/yangs:
we are omnivorous, we are amphibious, we have a limbic (reptilian) brain; and yet these aspects don't get the same press attention.
Donnally wrote: "One more thought about The Aeneid in the context of Roman civilization at the time it was written. I mentioned the period of civil war that ended with the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. As I thought a ..."There is definitely corroborating scholarship for your observation out there. For example,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41820008 and
https://www.degruyter.com/document/do...
I haven't read through these yet, but the summaries look like they're in line with your thoughts on Cleopatra and Dido.
Thomas, the academic articles you point out are interesting, and clearly there has been some critical discussion of analogies between Dido and Cleopatra. My outlook is the one mentioned elsewhere in this thread of reading the actual work, not the critics, and my opinions arise from my many readings of the poem, and not from criticism.That said, the first article focuses on why Cleopatra is not mentioned by name in the poem, especially in the description of Aeneas's shield, and the second points out that given the fraught political situation at the time, and Virgil's closeness to Augustus, it would have been dangerous to state too clearly the resemblance between Dido, with whom Virgil clearly has some sympathy, and Cleopatra. So I think Virgil was chary of making the analogy too specific, but I'm more certain than ever his readers would have seen it.
Sam wrote: "And if you by any chance know the "reason" for this, I'd dig it if you'd hip me to it..."Sam, my choice of quotations to follow what could be called a 'jibe' was probably careless. I am not much given to teleological "reasons." Ofttimes things simply "are" and humankind makes a myriad of uses of "is-ness." (I've just had fun looking at some of the intertwined lives of the Iliad, focusing on Briseis, Patroclus, and Achilles. I think sometime "soon" it may be time for me to re-read the entire Iliad.)
As a sidelight, it appears Shakespeare drew the same analogy. In Antony and Cleopatra Act IV, scene 14, Antony, when preparing to kill himself after Mardian had brought him the false news of Cleopatra's death, lines 51 - 4, says:"Where souls do couch on flowers, we'll hand in hand,
And with our sprightly port make the ghosts gaze,
Dido and her Aeneas shall want troops,
And all the haunt be ours."
It's an interesting question why Dido and 'her Aeneas' would be together in the underworld.
Donnally wrote: "As an sidelight, it appears Shakespeare drew the same analogy...."Do stories sometimes have more hardiness than facts?
Lily wrote: "Do stories sometimes have more hardiness than facts?"Absolutely. Stories have a meaning. Facts (except mathematical facts) have no meaning till they're woven into a story.
Donnally wrote: "... Facts (except mathematical facts) have no meaning till they're woven into a story."Hmm... not sure we ascribe the same definition/meaning? to "meaning."
Yeah, I think that would apply to "data" rather than facts. One can assign meaning to a fact though it is presented without a story. As for meaning, I have my own favorite insight,
"Meaning is the feeling of knowing."
And then there is Wittgenstein: "A picture is a fact."
This opens up a can of worms I don't intend to get into here. I've given a good deal of thought to the questions involved, which go right to the heart of metaphysics. If anyone is interested in my thinking I invite you to read my novel, The Devil's Workshop, particularly chapter 24, and my novella Cage of Light.I'll just say here that there is fact, there is truth and there is meaning, and it's a good question whether these have anything to do with one another.
Donnally wrote: "...If anyone is interested in my thinking I invite you to read my novel, The Devil's Workshop, particularly chapter 24, and my novella Cage of Light. ..."Let's see if I find/make time to bite on your tantalizing invitation!! (Given my "local" discussions, I may "have to." But Wittgenstein's Poker sits newly purchased, yet still unread beside my favorite reading chair.)
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Devil's Workshop (other topics)Cage of Light (other topics)
Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers (other topics)
Lavinia (other topics)
The Aeneid (other topics)
More...
"They'll publish it unfinished," [Aeneas] said. "I can't stop them. And I haven't got the strength to finish it. It ends with a murder, as you said. Turnus' death. Why does it? Who cares about Turnus? The world is full of fine fearless young men eager to kill and be killed. There'll always be enough of them for every war."
"Who kills him?"
The poet did not answer my question. He only said after a long time, "It's not the right ending."
"Tell me the right ending."
Again he was silent for a long time. "I can't," he said.
Turnus begs for mercy at the end. He surrenders. But when Aeneas sees the belt of Pallas, he is furious and kills Turnus, almost perfectly in parallel with the way Achilles kills Hector in the Iliad. Is this the right ending? Is this "pious" Aeneas? Could he have made a different choice?
Is this the right ending?