Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Virgil - Aeneid
>
Aeneid, Book 2
I read the Fitzgerald translation of Book 2.
Wow.
Wow.
I found it fascinating to see the war from the Trojan side rather than the Greek side. Yet the Trojans clearly had plenty of warning about the horse. They even heard knocking from inside it, but ignored it. I came as close as I ever come while reading a book to leaking a few tears as Aeneas told his story.
One of the things of which I could not help but note is the way in which Aeneas wife is left to run behind him, while he carries his father, and holds his son by the hand. I wondered if this is a refection of the position of which women held within the culture. The father and son as the patriarchs in the family take president, while the wife as a woman is an afterthought. Her mysterious vanishing into the crowd also served as a convenient way in which to get rid of her to open the doorway of the future events of which are to come.
I also think the whole relationship with the gods is quite interesting considering the Greeks and Trojans worship the same gods. I know while reading the Iliad, a lot of remarks were made comparing the war from the gods point of view, to us watching a football match or some other sporting event, and this does make me think of when members from two opposing teams both pray to god to aide them to win.
The very same gods of whom are at least in part responsible to what befell Troy Aeneas now looks to for aide in his destiny of which the gods places upon him to found a new Troy. Also I thought it was an interesting dynamic, that while the gods had some hand in the fall of Troy, they now charge Aeneas with finding a new home for them.
Also interesting contemplating of the fact that Venus is his mother considering the key role she herself had played in causing much of Aeneas current woes and troubles.
They do have such complicated family relations it is quite fascinating.
Everyman wrote: "I found it fascinating to see the war from the Trojan side rather than the Greek side. Yet the Trojans clearly had plenty of warning about the horse. They even heard knocking from inside it, but ..."I found this portrayal of how the episode with the Trojan horse went down to be quite interesting different then what I expected in the way in which they had started out as being suspicious of it at the on set and the whole convoluted story of sending in the Greek to pretend that he had been wronged by Ulysses as a way to coax the Trojan's into accepting the gift and get them to let their guard down.
The way in which the Greeks use and gift in trickery was really strongly emphasized here was interesting. I wonder if it was also a way of also trying to make the Trojan's appear as if they were not that gullible, in acknowledging that they were skeptical of the "gift" and it was only out of there attempts to be merciful and take on one whom they perceived as being grievously wronged, that they were then double tricked into falling prey to the scheme of the Greeks.
It also plays into the idea that the fastest way to make friends is to share a common enemy. The Trojans were blinded by their own hatred for the Greeks by having their feelings validated by another Greek with a tale of all the suffering he had at their hands.
[image error]One of my favorite representations of Laocoön. There is a replica (or similar carving) at the Met. Beauty meets evil in this one.
El Greco's painting. Laocoön at National Gallery of Art (not presently on display - 7/12)
"Widespread interest in the story of Laocoön, a mythical priest of Troy, developed after an ancient, monumental sculpture representing him and his two sons was unearthed in 1506 in Rome. Suspecting trickery, Laocoön had warned his countrymen not to accept the wooden horse left outside Troy by the Greeks and had hurled his spear at it to prove that it was hollow. Thus the priest incurred the wrath of the gods, for desecrating an object dedicated to the goddess Athena. El Greco depicted serpents, sent by the angry gods, engaging Laocoön and one son in a mortal struggle, while a second son lies already dead at his father's side. The identity of the unfinished figures on the right continues to be debated; perhaps they represent the gods themselves supervising their vengeance.
"Utilizing every available means — writhing line, lurid color, and illogically conceived space — the artist projected an unrelieved sense of doom. The figures seem incorporeal; sinuous outlines and anti–natural flesh tones contribute to their specterlike appearance. The striking setting carries this visionary late work of El Greco to an apocalyptic extreme.
"Did El Greco intend to relate this mythical theme of conflict and divine retribution to the Inquisition then raging in Toledo? Whatever the case, the story of Laocoön is the only classical theme he is known to have painted."
http://www.nga.gov/fcgi-bin/tinfo_f?o...
"Advancing straight to the spot where Laocoön stood with his two sons, the serpents wrapped their coils around the children. Laocoön struggled to tear them away, but they overpowered him and strangled him and his sons. The Trojans, convinced that this was a signal from heaven to ignore Laocoön's advice, brought the horse within the city walls and thus directly contributed to their own destruction.
"The most famous literary interpretation of the Laocoön legend is in Virgil's Aeneid. The most famous representation in art is a marble sculpture of the priest and his sons being crushed in the coils of the serpents; this group, known simply as Laocoon dates from the 1st century bc, and is now in the Vatican in Rome."
"The original group was sculpted in white marble by Greek sculptors on the island of Rhodes c. 25 B.C.E."
http://heindorffhus.motivsamler.dk/ar...
The climax of Book 2 comes with the death of Priam. It is a powerful scene of dramatic intensity, among the most memorable in the entire poem. Pyrrhus smashes into Priam's palace. He is compared in a full simile to a snake. Indeed, the snake imagery is prevalent throughout the book. "Sinon" is a snake-like name, and the twin serpents from Tenedos that kill Laocoon and his sons take it to another level altogether. Also, when the horse is wheeled into Troy, Vergil employs language that makes the horse seem as if is were "snaking" its way into the city.After breaking into the palace, Pyrrhus kills Priam's son Polites before his father's eyes. The slaughter of Priam hemself is so chilling since he is cut down cowering at an altar in the innermost sanctuary of his own home. He is feeble and helpless, and his last-ditch attempt to grab his rusty arms is filled with pathos. Pyrrhus, on the other hand, exults in his youthful power and strength. When Priam supplicates him and reminds him of how his father, Achilles, had allowed him to take Hector back, Pyrrhus mocks him and then runs him through with his sword. The scene is so incredible -- and characteristically Vergilian -- because it portrays the death of the great king not as a battlefield killing resulting from a contest between two evenly matched warriors, but as a ruthless, cold-blooded assassination of a helpless old man in a religious sanctuary.
There is no honor for Pyrrhus in such a killing, nor is there any for Priam, whose great reign ends with him begging for his life and unable to defend himself or Hecuba and other members of his family.
Some have argued that Vergil is an anti-war poet, and this scene offers compelling evidence to support the argument. The insanity of blood-lust and the senseless butchery that war engenders are here on full display, and Vergil's art is rarely more brilliantly effective.
By the way, there is an interesting issue concerning the scene immediately following the death of Priam, where Aeneas encounters Helen at the temple of Vesta and contemplates killing her before Venus arrives and urges him to head home. This scene is not included in one of the principal (and otherwise highly reliable) manuscripts of the poem. On this basis, some have opined that Vergil didn't write it but that some other hand was involved. There doesn't seem to be anything in the Latin that deviates from Vergil's usual style, i.e., unusual words or sentence structures; I prefer to think that Vergil wrote it but who knows.
Sorry if this is too big. French Neoclassical painting showing the death of Priam. I like to show this in class and ask students: does it accurately depict what Vergil has written?
Another depiction:Pietro Benvenuti, The Death of Priam, 1811, Firenze, Palazzo Corsini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pie...
Max-- you can adjust the width and height in the html source. I am mostly just lazy and half it for large pictures.
Here is one source for the Lefebvre painting (It apparently won the Prix de Rome in 1861, but I don't find who owns the original):
www.flickr.com/photos/hohlwein/357163...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hohlwein... -- interesting event back in 2006. There are more pictures here of the readers et al.
I would say neither painting is faithful in detail to the original text although both capture the signature brutalities of Pyrrhus on Polites and Priam.
Lily wrote: "I would say neither painting is faithful in detail to the original text although both capture the signature brutalities of Pyrrhus on Polites and Priam."I agree. What is interesting about these paintings is the extent to which they reveal a fixation on Vergil (and Homer) in the age in which they were created. As with many paintings from a range of periods, though especially in the Renaissance, many scenes from classical literature (such as these) would have been instantly recognizable to an audience that was steeped in ancient literature.
It is also interesting to consider Vergil's way of incorporating conventions from painting (and statuary) in his own writing. The ekphrasis from Book 1 (the depictions on Juno's temple of various scenes from the Trojan War) consists of a series of illustrations that reveal a fascination on Vergil's part with color, compositional symmetry, and similar painting techniques. He is attempting to transcend the limitations of a purely verbal art into a medium where pictures are vividly created. Simonides (the Greek poet) has a famous quotation: "Painting is silent poetry and poetry is spoken painting."
The description of the fall of Troy is one of the most gripping moments in the history of literature. I read the Fagles translation, and he really nailed it.The very same gods of whom are at least in part responsible to what befell Troy Aeneas now looks to for aide in his destiny of which the gods places upon him to found a new Troy. Also I thought it was an interesting dynamic, that while the gods had some hand in the fall of Troy, they now charge Aeneas with finding a new home for them.
The classical view of fate/destiny is not straightforward at all, and it's really hard to comprehend in modern terms. I mean, the gods give Aeneas and the Trojans what eventually becomes the most powerful empire on earth, so next to that the fall of Troy is 'worth it'.
Also, Aeneas had no choice but to trust in the gods.
Don wrote: "...it's really hard to comprehend in modern terms...."Don -- I'm not a student of philosophy, let alone the history of philosophy, but sometimes the ancient ideas of fate and destiny and the mix-up with forces beyond the individual don't seem so different than present day attitudes and presumptions?
max wrote: "Simonides (the Greek poet) has a famous quotation: 'Painting is silent poetry and poetry is spoken painting.'..."Painting and literature have an incredibly long linkage in the Western traditions. For just a couple of turn of the 20th century examples, consider the comparison of Milly Theale to the Portrait of Lucrezia Panciatichi by Agnolo Bronzino in Henry James's The Wings of the Dove or Paintings in Proust: A Visual Companion to In Search of Lost Time by Eric Karpeles, an entire volume keyed to Proust's text. And those are just two rather trivial examples in the vast panorama.
http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/b... -- see commentary and quotations for interlocking of literary and visual arts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ang...
Silver wrote: "The way in which the Greeks use and gift in trickery was really strongly emphasized here was interesting. I wonder if it was also a way of also trying to make the Trojan's appear as if they were not that gullible, in acknowledging that they were skeptical of the "gift" and it was only out of there attempts to be merciful and take on one whom they perceived as being grievously wronged, that they were then double tricked into falling prey to the scheme of the Greeks."I certainly thought so. Virgil couldn't allow the Trojans to be too easily duped. Though he allowed plenty of signs that it would be foolish to take in the gift of the Greeks (and really, the ploy of the Greek double agent should be rather transparent), he also provided enough rationale for skeptical yet passionate Trojans to be swindled, especially after the supernatural doom of Laocoon and the implication that they could not trust his judgement.
However, I would differ from the interpretation that Laocoon necessarily "... incurred the wrath of the gods, for desecrating an object dedicated to the goddess Athena." At least, I'd say this is ambiguous.
Virgil does not say this is so. This is the interpretation of the crowd, as related by Aeneas, and he seems doubtful. This is the interpretation which wrongly persuades the Trojans to self-destruct by taking in the horse. I'd say that Laocoon died mainly because it was fated that Troy would fall, and he stood in opposition to this. He's another Cassandra, doomed to be ignored when his wisdom is most lucid and correct.
"Fate," of course, could also be translated as "author's contrivance." To be fair.
Zadignose wrote: "I certainly thought so. Virgil couldn't allow the Trojans to be too easily duped. Though he allowed plenty of signs that it would be foolish to take in the gift of the Greeks (and really, the ploy of the Greek double agent should be rather transparent), he also provided enough rationale for skeptical yet passionate Trojans to be swindled, especially after the supernatural doom of Laocoon and the implication that they could not trust his judgement...."Considering that this story is being told from the Trojan's point of view I think that this also serves to make the Greeks look even more villainous. For not only do they stoop to the device of presenting the Trojan's with this false gift but they also seek to exploit the noble, and sentimental feelings of the Trojan's in their willingness to take in this presumably wronged individual, who very badly returns their good intentions.
And of course Aeneas himself would not want to admit to being easily duped and while I am not saying he is being untruthful, this rather elaborate version of what happened and just how they were fooled by the Greeks does help him and the Trojans look better in the eyes of the audience, who just happens to be Queen Dido.
Silver wrote: "The way in which the Greeks use and gift in trickery was really strongly emphasized here was interesting. I wonder if it was also a way of also trying to make the Trojan's appear as if they were not that gullible, in acknowledging that they were skeptical of the "gift" and it was only out of there attempts to be merciful ..."Sinon offers a credible reason for the Greeks' offering of a gift -- Ulysses and Diomedes stole the Palladium from its shrine and desecrated it with their bloody fingers. From that point, Sinon says, the Greek cause turned. The Greeks take the advice of their seer, Calchas, to sail away, and to offer "repayment" in the form of the horse. This is a solid explanation for why they would leave, at least to regroup, after many long years of battle.
And from a more distant perspective the story of the horse fits in with the Greeks' disrespect for the sanctity of the Trojans' altars. The Trojans are tricked by Sinon's story and the horse, but their faith in the gods sets this up. (Though I find their faith in Athena, who is a guardian of the Greek cause, a little odd.)
Thomas wrote: "Sinon offers a credible reason for the Greeks' offering of a gift -- Ulysses and Diomedes stole the Palladium from its shrine and desecrated it with their bloody fingers. From that point, Sinon says, the Greek cause turned. The Greeks take the advice of their seer, Calchas, to sail away, and to offer "repayment" in the form of the horse. This is a solid explanation for why they would leave, at least to regroup, after many long years of battle. ..."And there is more -- Sinon also tells the Trojans that he himself had been targeted by the Greeks as a human sacrifice; just as Iphigenia had been sacrificed to get a wind to sail from Greece (a true fact), so another would be needed to reach home safely, and they were going to sacrifice Sinon, who therefore had no choice but to escape and save his life. This is false, but credible.
And Sinon also weaves into his long speech the story of how Ulysses had conspired to "frame" Sinon's Greek patron, Palamedes -- by having him stoned to death (an actual fact, left out by Homer but very much a part of the Trojan War myth). Sinon tells the Trojans he was a follower of Palamedes but that relationship ended when P. was killed, and that Ulysses had it in for him as well -- another false but believable point, since the deceitful nature of Ulysses was well known to the Trojans.
And of course, the Greeks themselves had already abandoned their encampment and departed to Tenedos, where they were hiding on the other side -- completely unseen by the Trojans.
The speech is a brilliant con job in the way that it plays off a long-standing Trojan suspicion of the Greeks by combining factual information the Trojans would have known with false but otherwise credible information to garner sympathy for Sinon and trick the Trojans into bringing the horse within Troy.
And, as Thomas has pointed out, their faith in the gods adds a further step in the fatal progression of events.
As has been noted, much of Book 2 serves to contrast sharply the cunning, treacherous, deceitful nature of the Greeks with the Trojans, who, as Rome's ancestors, had integrity, honor, fidelity and reverence for the gods -- in a word, "pietas."
There is also an interesting reprise of the Sinon episode in the character of Achamenides in Book 3.
The relationships and symmetry between different fathers sons, and wives is interesting.Father: Priam - Killed
Son: Polites - Killed
Wife: Hecubus - enslaved (worse than killed?)
Father: Anchises - saved
Son: Ascanius/Iulus - saved
Wife: Creusa - killed but saved from enslavement.
max wrote: "Iphigenia had been sacrificed to get a wind to sail from Greece (a true fact),..."Hmmm -- "true fact"? For any of this?
It is interesting sometimes to speculate (or consider what the scholars can tell us) about how information traveled and was accepted in those days, such as the sacrifice of Iphigenia and the reasons therefore.
Patrice wrote: "I also thought it interesting that Venus held back her son in the same way that Athena held Achilles back from killing Agamemnon. It made me wonder about the difference. In one epic it is wise to..."I thought it was a bit ironic that it was Venus that saves Helen by reminding Aeneas that it was not Helen's fault but the work of the gods, considering that Venus herself was principle in bringing Helen to Troy. I wonder if in a way her saving of Helen is not in part because she herself feels some responsibility towards Helen and Helen's fate.
Encountered this today in the introduction to the Penguin edition of the Orestia (Philip Vellacot): "When everything was ready for the start, the wind changed to the north. The usual fair-wind sacrifices failed to have their effect. Days lengthened into months, and still northerly gales kept the fleet harbour-bound, till food-supplies became an acute problem. At length the prophet Calchas pronounced the anger of the virgin goddess Artemis must be appeased by the sacrifice of Agamemnon's virgin daughter Iphigenia. Agamemnon protested, and was taunted by his fellow-kings with faint-heartedness. In the end he wrote to Clytemnestra saying he had arranged for his daughter to be married to Achilles, and commanding her to be sent to Aulis. Iphigenia came, and was duly slaughtered."I had missed this linkage of Achilles and Iphigenia previously. Not sure how significant (to Achilles relationship with Agamemnon) or if even "known" to Homer....?
Interesting also to contrast the images of responsibility for control of the winds. (It surprised [and delighted?] when Neptune stepped in to assert himself in the first chapter of The Aeneid.)
Lily wrote: "Interesting also to contrast the images of responsibility for control of the winds. (It surprised [and delighted?] when Neptune stepped in to assert himself in the first chapter of The Aeneid.) ."That struck me as interesting too, particularly since I recall in The Odyssey, it seemed that at different points there were several gods who would control the wind, and I also recalled Artemis controlling of the wind in the story of Agamemnon and Iphigenia so I remember thinking to myself that it seemed like the wind was just up for grabs for any god who wants to make use of them. So I was rater struck when here we see Neptune asserting his authority over wind and called the others out for steeping into his territory so to speak.
max wrote: "As has been noted, much of Book 2 serves to contrast sharply the cunning, treacherous, deceitful nature of the Greeks with the Trojans, who, as Rome's ancestors, had integrity, honor, fidelity and reverence for the gods -- in a word, "pietas."."This is a helpful reminder. I'm still struggling with the question why the gods abandon Troy so completely, but the perfidy and sacrilege of the Greeks does throw the piety of the Trojans into relief. Maybe that is the reason, at least from a dramatic point of view.
Patrice wrote: "I also thought it interesting that Venus held back her son in the same way that Athena held Achilles back from killing Agamemnon. It made me wonder about the difference. In one epic it is wise to..."Nice observation. It's interesting in this book to compare the rage of Achilles with the furor of Aeneas. At times they seem similar, at least in this book, but Aeneas somehow seems less heroic and more human to me. Aeneas has a mission beyond the war, whereas Achilles knows he is bound for a heroic death.
Lily wrote: "Don -- I'm not a student of philosophy, let alone the history of philosophy, but sometimes the ancient ideas of fate and destiny and the mix-up with forces beyond the individual don't seem so different than present day attitudes and presumptions?"
The more I learn about the ideas of the Greeks and Romans, the more impressed I am that they really did cover pretty much the whole gamut of intellectual thought, particularly in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and politics. We have made great technical advances in areas of science and mathematics, but still you can find echoes of these ideas back in the classics; really, all they lacked was the instrumentation and the extended record of observations which benefit modern science and mathematics.
Love all the art people are posting! The classics certainly provided a rich fount of stories and situations to inspire great art.
Everyman wrote: "...the more impressed I am that they really did cover pretty much the whole gamut of intellectual thought, particularly in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and politics...."You may find this book review of interest -- on the topic of the ancients overlooking "nothing"!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/boo...
Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story by Jim Holt
Patrice wrote: "But it surprised me that Venus describes the gods as being evil. Wasn't one of Plato's objections to Homer that he showed the gods doing wrong? And here is Venus, saying, yes the gods are hmmm does she say "wrong"?."I hope I'm looking at the same verses you are, but In Mandelbaum's translation Venus calls the gods "relentless," and then after her speech Aeneas (as the narrator of the story) says that "Ferocious forms appear -- the fearful powers of gods that are the enemies of Troy." (Mandelbaum 2.815)
This is just as Aeneas is thinking about "blotting out" Helen. Venus intervenes, naturally, and turns his mind to the safety of his family instead of seeking vengeance. This seems somewhat virtuous to me, at least given the circumstances.
But if Virgil was thinking about Plato at all (and I'm not sure he was) I wonder if the type of government that Aeneas would found was in his thoughts. Virgil was writing after the fall of the Roman Republic and at the beginning of the Empire. I wonder if this figures into the the way that Aeneas will start his new city.
Patrice wrote: " I listened to it again. Fagles calls the gods "ruthless".
Venus says "the ruthless gods are tearing down Troy".
Sounds like an indictment of the gods to me.
."
I read that passage differently.
Long. (view spoiler)
Venus says "the ruthless gods are tearing down Troy".
Sounds like an indictment of the gods to me.
."
I read that passage differently.
Long. (view spoiler)
At post 5 Silver wrote: "One of the things of which I could not help but note is the way in which Aeneas wife is left to run behind him, while he carries his father, and holds his son by the hand. I wondered if this is a refection of the position of which women held within the culture. The father and son as the patriarchs in the family take president, while the wife as a woman is an afterthought.
."
I read a couple of different thoughts about that.
Fitzgerald's translation:
"By various routes we'll come to that one place" (1:931).
One author held that Aeneas's wife (and others?) wasn't with Aeneas, father, and son, was because smaller groups would have a better chance of making it through the city without attracting undue attention.
Another author (sorry...in both instances I forgot the authors)...said that Virgil had Creusa follow Aeneas in order to bring to the minds of the listeners the story of Orpheus...who had gone to the Underworld to bring his wife, Eurydice, back to the land of the living. But Orpheus wasn't supposed to look back, but he did, and then Eurydice couldn't leave with him.
Maybe...maybe the memory traces of this story??? are also suppose to show that Aeneas can't look back anymore...he can only look forward...only keep in mind his new duties.
Oh, I found one more theory. From Fathers and Sons in Virgil's Aeneid, author M. Owen Lee:
Lee holds that "piety" for the Romans consisted of devotion to family, country, and gods. In keeping with that view, Lee writes: "Creusa cannot be a part of the group that is meant to symbolize pietas" (45).
And yes, as Silver said, it is so convenient for Aeneas to leave Troy unencumbered with a wife.
."
I read a couple of different thoughts about that.
Fitzgerald's translation:
"By various routes we'll come to that one place" (1:931).
One author held that Aeneas's wife (and others?) wasn't with Aeneas, father, and son, was because smaller groups would have a better chance of making it through the city without attracting undue attention.
Another author (sorry...in both instances I forgot the authors)...said that Virgil had Creusa follow Aeneas in order to bring to the minds of the listeners the story of Orpheus...who had gone to the Underworld to bring his wife, Eurydice, back to the land of the living. But Orpheus wasn't supposed to look back, but he did, and then Eurydice couldn't leave with him.
Maybe...maybe the memory traces of this story??? are also suppose to show that Aeneas can't look back anymore...he can only look forward...only keep in mind his new duties.
Oh, I found one more theory. From Fathers and Sons in Virgil's Aeneid, author M. Owen Lee:
Lee holds that "piety" for the Romans consisted of devotion to family, country, and gods. In keeping with that view, Lee writes: "Creusa cannot be a part of the group that is meant to symbolize pietas" (45).
And yes, as Silver said, it is so convenient for Aeneas to leave Troy unencumbered with a wife.
at Post 10 max wrote: "The climax of Book 2 comes with the death of Priam. It is a powerful scene of dramatic intensity, among the most memorable in the entire poem. Pyrrhus smashes into Priam's palace. He is compared..."
I don't know what to make of this. Priam in this scene excoriates Pyrrhus as being a degenerate---not honorable like Achilles:
"That great Achilles
You claim to be the son of -- you lie --
Was not like you to Priam, his enemy'
To me who threw myself upon his mercy
He showed compunction, gave me back for burial
The bloodless corpse of Hector, and returned me
To my own realm" (Fitzgerald 2: 701).
And Priam is saying this. And Priam was there in that tent with Achilles. He should know better than anyone else what transpired there that night.
Yet back in Book 1, while looking at the wall paintings or engraved pictures at Juno's temple, Virgil writes what I think are supposed to be the thoughts of Aeneas...
"And there was Hector, dragged around Troy walls
Three times, and there for gold Achilles sold him" (Fitzgerald 1: 658).
So,...did Priam lie to himself about what happened between himself and Achilles...and did he hold to that lie even when facing death at the hands of Phyrrus?
Or does Aeneas choose to believe that what really happened was that Achilles had no honor...that Achilles "sold" Hector's body to Priam for gold?
Or is Virgil wanting us to question what we believe? Does he want us to become aware that we all lie to ourselves about the past...even the parts of the past that we personally lived through? To make ourselves or our own partisans look better?
I don't know what to make of this. Priam in this scene excoriates Pyrrhus as being a degenerate---not honorable like Achilles:
"That great Achilles
You claim to be the son of -- you lie --
Was not like you to Priam, his enemy'
To me who threw myself upon his mercy
He showed compunction, gave me back for burial
The bloodless corpse of Hector, and returned me
To my own realm" (Fitzgerald 2: 701).
And Priam is saying this. And Priam was there in that tent with Achilles. He should know better than anyone else what transpired there that night.
Yet back in Book 1, while looking at the wall paintings or engraved pictures at Juno's temple, Virgil writes what I think are supposed to be the thoughts of Aeneas...
"And there was Hector, dragged around Troy walls
Three times, and there for gold Achilles sold him" (Fitzgerald 1: 658).
So,...did Priam lie to himself about what happened between himself and Achilles...and did he hold to that lie even when facing death at the hands of Phyrrus?
Or does Aeneas choose to believe that what really happened was that Achilles had no honor...that Achilles "sold" Hector's body to Priam for gold?
Or is Virgil wanting us to question what we believe? Does he want us to become aware that we all lie to ourselves about the past...even the parts of the past that we personally lived through? To make ourselves or our own partisans look better?
Patrice wrote: "The problem i have with that interpretation is that Venus loved Troy. Ruthlessness in the service of what she felt was "good" would make sense. But ruthlessness in the destruction of her beloved ..."
I don't think Venus thought the actions of the gods, destroying Troy, were " good.". But it IS being done.
EDIT ADDED: I don't think Venus views the destruction of Troy as morally "good" or morally "bad." I think she's a realist...She's allowing Aeneis to see what is really happening.
I don't think Venus thought the actions of the gods, destroying Troy, were " good.". But it IS being done.
EDIT ADDED: I don't think Venus views the destruction of Troy as morally "good" or morally "bad." I think she's a realist...She's allowing Aeneis to see what is really happening.
Patrice wrote: ".Why can't Creusa be part of the group that is meant to symbolize pietas? ."
Ha ha. I laugh and I am puzzled, "yeah, why can't Creusa be part of the group that is meant to symbolize pietas?"
So sorry, Patrice, reading typing too late I was. Watching the Olympics at the same time I was. Sorry.
Good thing there's a page number there with that quote.
Mmm. I don't this this is going to help much. The Lee quote continues, "for the rest of the poem, it is pius Aeneas, pater Anchises, and puer Ascanius who will establish the various relationships that constitute this virtue. A man is pius in his relationship to his father and his son, the gods he bears and the civilization he serves. A man may be any number of thngs to his wife, but pietas is not, for Virgil, part of that relationship."
But i have difficulty buying into that because it seems that Creusa is less important simply because she is female. Yet Venus is female. A mother... And Creusa is a mother. And Aeneas is very much showing Venus pietas...setting as his goal, her goal.
Ok. No more readin' and writin' and watchin' and the same time. Doesn't leave enough time for thinkin'.
Ha ha. I laugh and I am puzzled, "yeah, why can't Creusa be part of the group that is meant to symbolize pietas?"
So sorry, Patrice, reading typing too late I was. Watching the Olympics at the same time I was. Sorry.
Good thing there's a page number there with that quote.
Mmm. I don't this this is going to help much. The Lee quote continues, "for the rest of the poem, it is pius Aeneas, pater Anchises, and puer Ascanius who will establish the various relationships that constitute this virtue. A man is pius in his relationship to his father and his son, the gods he bears and the civilization he serves. A man may be any number of thngs to his wife, but pietas is not, for Virgil, part of that relationship."
But i have difficulty buying into that because it seems that Creusa is less important simply because she is female. Yet Venus is female. A mother... And Creusa is a mother. And Aeneas is very much showing Venus pietas...setting as his goal, her goal.
Ok. No more readin' and writin' and watchin' and the same time. Doesn't leave enough time for thinkin'.
49> For the ancients, ruthlessness and brutality in battle are not 'bad', and the gods are not subject to the same rules as man.
It's bad in that she was for the other side, but ruthlessness and brutality in battle were not 'bad' morally.
I'm reading the book in Italian. L'"Eneide", the Italian name, is the founding myth of the origins of Rome. Virgil manages to dignify the Empire.
Patrice wrote: "So you are saying that Venus did not think it was "bad" that the gods were destroying Troy? Didn't she love Troy?"
Mmm...like Don's post said, the ruthlessness is in itself neither good nor bad. It's how it's used. Great sword-fighting skills aren't good or bad...but advantageous to have on your side. Ruthlessness, strictly speaking, isn't good or bad. Not really. A surgeon might ruthlessly remove all the body tissue infected with cancer cells.
Mmm...like Don's post said, the ruthlessness is in itself neither good nor bad. It's how it's used. Great sword-fighting skills aren't good or bad...but advantageous to have on your side. Ruthlessness, strictly speaking, isn't good or bad. Not really. A surgeon might ruthlessly remove all the body tissue infected with cancer cells.
At 55 Patrice ..." regarding Achilles, Priam, gold.
Priam DID bring a wagonload of gold and treasure with himwhen he went to the tent of Achilles to ask for/orbeg for the return of Hector's body.
In the Iliad, Priam and Achilles viewed the gold and treasure as "ransom," as something expected and fitting. Priam had wanted to bring Achilles a large amount of ransom...a larger amount translated into more honor for Hector.
Yet here in Virgil's poem, Priam words still imply the exchange (ransom for the body) and achilles was honorable. Aeneid's words suggest that the exchange was nothing more than a sale...and that A hilles was base, venal.
Priam DID bring a wagonload of gold and treasure with himwhen he went to the tent of Achilles to ask for/orbeg for the return of Hector's body.
In the Iliad, Priam and Achilles viewed the gold and treasure as "ransom," as something expected and fitting. Priam had wanted to bring Achilles a large amount of ransom...a larger amount translated into more honor for Hector.
Yet here in Virgil's poem, Priam words still imply the exchange (ransom for the body) and achilles was honorable. Aeneid's words suggest that the exchange was nothing more than a sale...and that A hilles was base, venal.
Cruel. But effective. And if what is most important is the goal...
(I'm with you, though, in wishing I knew Latin. Tried to teach myself when I was in 6th grade.)
(I'm with you, though, in wishing I knew Latin. Tried to teach myself when I was in 6th grade.)
Adelle wrote: "... Wish I knew Latin. Tried to teach myself when I was in 6th grade...."LOL! Miss Briscoe tried to teach me when I was in the 10th grade! All that is left is some better understanding of some Latin etymologies! But thanks for that. (Miss B was one of those stern taskmasters most of us encounter somewhere along the paths of our educations.)
Lily wrote:LOL! Miss Briscoe tried to teach me when I was in the 10th grade! All that is left is some better understanding of some Latin etymologies! But thanks for that. (Miss B was one of those stern taskmasters most of us encounter somewhere along the paths of our educations.) "
I had one of those stern taskmaster teachers.
She was a good--meaning effective--teacher.
I was thinking that Venus wasn't nearly the comforting mother to Aeneis that Thetis was to Achilles. You noticed Venus cut Aeneis off in mid-sentence when he was complaining.
But perhaps a sterness...emotional remove...was considered a strength, a virtue, in Roman mothers. And she DID make sure he achieved his goal.
Like the taskmaster teachers made sure their students learned what they were supposed to learn...pushed the students to learn, achieve what they were capable of.
I had one of those stern taskmaster teachers.
She was a good--meaning effective--teacher.
I was thinking that Venus wasn't nearly the comforting mother to Aeneis that Thetis was to Achilles. You noticed Venus cut Aeneis off in mid-sentence when he was complaining.
But perhaps a sterness...emotional remove...was considered a strength, a virtue, in Roman mothers. And she DID make sure he achieved his goal.
Like the taskmaster teachers made sure their students learned what they were supposed to learn...pushed the students to learn, achieve what they were capable of.
Patrice wrote: "I was thinking the same thing. Thetis babied achilles and Achilles was a big baby. Venus told Aeneis to man up and take care of his family."Hey! Wait a minute here. The big baby does almost pre-empt the Aeneid in the Iliad where he would have killed Aeneas if Poseidon hadn't stepped in. And if his Mom hadn't come to save him, Aeneas wouldn't have made it past Diomedes much earlier in the book. Who's the big baby here?
In some respects, they're all big babies. Even heroes are dependent on the gods. Some of them even love their mothers. ;)
I've skipped over several messages in the thread (I'll go back later), but regarding the evil that gods do, I think it's always been apparent that the gods of ancient Greece and Rome are very very flawed, often wicked, always arbitrary, and the embodiment of so many of man's vices. In fact, I think that's the appeal of polytheism: it accurately represents the fact that we live a life of constant strife. Conflict is at the heart of the universe. The fatalism of the Greeks is also terrifying. If we are fated, then we act, we can not help to act, we cannot avoid our fate, and yet we are responsible for the fate which we can only arguably be said to "choose," and we are usually brutally punished for it. That is the lot of man. It is irrational to seek true "justice" as we understand the term today, in the world of the Greek gods. Life, rather, is perpetual tragedy.
Zadignose wrote: "In fact, I think that's the appeal of polytheism: it accurately represents the fact that we live a life of constant strife. Conflict is at the heart of the universe. The fatalism of the Greeks is also terrifying. If we are fated, then we act, we can not help to act, we cannot avoid our fate, and yet we are responsible for the fate which we can only arguably be said to "choose," and we are usually brutally punished for it. That is the lot of man. It is irrational to seek true "justice" as we understand the term today, in the world of the Greek gods. Life, rather, is perpetual tragedy...."It is oft times very difficult to distinguish between truth and truism. Or when paradox is as true as truth.
Patrice wrote: "She tells him the ones to hate are those ruthless gods. Hmmm, not quite THE Madonna, eh? Reminds me that this IS Rome after all. She says he should hate Neptune who is tearing down Troy stone by stone. And hate Juno. And Pallas with her savage Gorgon.."Just curious -- what translation is this? Does it really have Venus telling A. to "hate" the gods, or is this your interpretation?
Patrice wrote: "I was thinking the same thing. Thetis babied achilles and Achilles was a big baby. Venus told Aeneis to man up and take care of his family."
But I LOVE Achilles, Patrice! Remember? I believe him to have been the best man there at Troy.
But listen...I've been thinking about this this afternoon...
MAYBE...maybe Achilles could accomplish his goal---(And his goal wasn't death. His goal was individual glory. Death was only the cost.)--maybe Achilles could accomplish his goal with a loving mother who comforted him when his heart was full of sorrow because he had HIS OWN goal. Remember, it was Achilles himself who wanted glory and chose that fate. Nobody imposed that goal on him. Indeed, his mother might well have hoped that he would have chosen otherwise. Therefore his mother, Thetis, can comfort him (I don't think she babied him...but she was always, always there for him) and he's going to reach his goal because it's what he wants FOR HIMSELF.
But Aeneis.....That's a different story. Aeneis never came up with the idea, much less the goal, of refounding Troy. He was pretty much told that that was going to be his fate now. He never chose that goal of his own accord. Therefore his mother had to be a stern taskmaster with him... (and I think she was. I don't know why we see Venus so differently, but we do. I don't see her as loving towards Aeneis as all. I see her as wanting that bloodline preserved...but regarding Aeneis as an individual...I see no motherly love. How odd, yes, that we see her so differently.)
Anyway...Venus must be a stern taskmaster with Aeneis...constantly reminding him of his goal, his duty...because it isn't anything that he would do on his own if he had his druthers. Therefore...she has to push him.
So at least is my thinking at this point.
But I LOVE Achilles, Patrice! Remember? I believe him to have been the best man there at Troy.
But listen...I've been thinking about this this afternoon...
MAYBE...maybe Achilles could accomplish his goal---(And his goal wasn't death. His goal was individual glory. Death was only the cost.)--maybe Achilles could accomplish his goal with a loving mother who comforted him when his heart was full of sorrow because he had HIS OWN goal. Remember, it was Achilles himself who wanted glory and chose that fate. Nobody imposed that goal on him. Indeed, his mother might well have hoped that he would have chosen otherwise. Therefore his mother, Thetis, can comfort him (I don't think she babied him...but she was always, always there for him) and he's going to reach his goal because it's what he wants FOR HIMSELF.
But Aeneis.....That's a different story. Aeneis never came up with the idea, much less the goal, of refounding Troy. He was pretty much told that that was going to be his fate now. He never chose that goal of his own accord. Therefore his mother had to be a stern taskmaster with him... (and I think she was. I don't know why we see Venus so differently, but we do. I don't see her as loving towards Aeneis as all. I see her as wanting that bloodline preserved...but regarding Aeneis as an individual...I see no motherly love. How odd, yes, that we see her so differently.)
Anyway...Venus must be a stern taskmaster with Aeneis...constantly reminding him of his goal, his duty...because it isn't anything that he would do on his own if he had his druthers. Therefore...she has to push him.
So at least is my thinking at this point.
At 76 Patrice wrote: "First of all, i realized that when Aeneas sees Venus, all radiant and glowing with love and beauty, the natural image that came to mind was of the Madonna..."
I will try occasionally to see Venus that way ... every so often as I read now ...
But for me...just me...I see Venus as cold, heartless, focused, a bit like Michelle Pfeiffer in the movie The Golden Compass. I know she's the goddess of love... but my thinking...just me...is that it's the eroctic, hot-blooded, early stage of an intense physical relationship kind of love... and that there must be a different goddess of love towards children ... and a different kind of goddess for "We've-been-married-twenty-years-now-and-we-still-love-each-other" kind of love.
But I can picture Venus loving beautiful things. But for me...I would see her in a cold loveless mansion surrounded by beautiful things...with no warmth... As though all her heat has been expended on passion... as though she only has two temperature settings: (very) hot and (indiffernt) cold.
I will try occasionally to see Venus that way ... every so often as I read now ...
But for me...just me...I see Venus as cold, heartless, focused, a bit like Michelle Pfeiffer in the movie The Golden Compass. I know she's the goddess of love... but my thinking...just me...is that it's the eroctic, hot-blooded, early stage of an intense physical relationship kind of love... and that there must be a different goddess of love towards children ... and a different kind of goddess for "We've-been-married-twenty-years-now-and-we-still-love-each-other" kind of love.
But I can picture Venus loving beautiful things. But for me...I would see her in a cold loveless mansion surrounded by beautiful things...with no warmth... As though all her heat has been expended on passion... as though she only has two temperature settings: (very) hot and (indiffernt) cold.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Women Who Run With the Wolves (other topics)Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story (other topics)
The Wings of the Dove (other topics)
Paintings in Proust: A Visual Companion to 'In Search of Lost Time' (other topics)
After a valiant effort, Aeneas witnesses the death of Priam and the inevitability of defeat. Venus appears to him and advises him to think of his father, his wife, and his son. He finds them and they flee, but Aeneas' wife Creusa is lost along the way and perishes. Her ghost appears to Aeneas and comforts him:
"Why do you rave and revel in this sorrow,
Sweet husband? It was by the will of heaven
This came about. It is not right to take me." (1.776)
Book 2 is rich with religious imagery and the "will of heaven" is a theme that runs throughout. Most shocking, and slightly bizarre, is the the image of sea serpents emerging to attack Laocoon, the Trojan priest of Neptune who previously warned the Trojans against accepting the gift horse. He is at the altar performing a sacrifice when the snakes kill not only him, but his children as well. Priam is killed at the altar in his courtyard. When Cassandra is dragged from the altar of Minerva, Coroebus flies into a rage, but he too falls at the altar of the goddess. Is this the will of heaven? Or have the gods deserted Troy entirely?
And yet, despite the utter defeat and destruction of the city, there seems to be hope for Aeneas -- a favorable sign from Jupiter and the flames that dance around young Iulus' head. What does this signify?